Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a notable site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to re-examine this policy.
Johnleemk
If there were enough reputable independent third-party sources discussing such a site, then there would be such an issue. And an AC case doesn't create a policy.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 10/17/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a
notable
site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to re-examine this policy.
Johnleemk
If there were enough reputable independent third-party sources discussing such a site, then there would be such an issue. And an AC case doesn't create a policy.
And judges don't make law. Let's be honest, Charles - judges say they don't make law, the arbcom says it doesn't make policy. In reality, both do. It's just that the law isn't codified as a separate law - it is enshrined in the precedent set. If this were not so, the Supreme Court of the US would probably not be as powerful as it is today, and we wouldn't even have this case (after all, proponents of BADSITES-ish policies often cite a particular arbcom case when arguing their point).
Johnleemk