On 10/17/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews(a)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