On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:13:45 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really not sure this has faded as much as you make out. I mean, I stumbled across *yet another* of those "let's look at Wikipedia, isn't it really exciting" articles today entirely by accident - http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid52864.aspx
But I'll note that this positively-toned article does include a link to Wikipedia Review, showing that even friendly, sympathetic reporters don't seem to share the "Linking to attack sites is EVIL!" taboo.
But I'll note that this positively-toned article does include a link to Wikipedia Review, showing that even friendly, sympathetic reporters don't seem to share the "Linking to attack sites is EVIL!" taboo.
Or they may simply not be aware of the "evil" things WR does. Most of what they do is just discussion and is a little annoying but certainly not evil. As far as I know, it's just the "admin outing" that people consider evil, and you could quite easily miss that part of what they do if you were just glancing at the site.
Quoting Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
But I'll note that this positively-toned article does include a link to Wikipedia Review, showing that even friendly, sympathetic reporters don't seem to share the "Linking to attack sites is EVIL!" taboo.
Or they may simply not be aware of the "evil" things WR does. Most of what they do is just discussion and is a little annoying but certainly not evil. As far as I know, it's just the "admin outing" that people consider evil, and you could quite easily miss that part of what they do if you were just glancing at the site.
Even if they did notice, do you expect objective journalists to decide to not link to a website that happens to be doing bad things? I've seen journalists link to nazi sites and even give the links to NSFW shock sites, or to sites that had spyware (generally with a warning).
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:13:45 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really not sure this has faded as much as you make out. I mean, I stumbled across *yet another* of those "let's look at Wikipedia, isn't it really exciting" articles today entirely by accident - http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid52864.aspx
But I'll note that this positively-toned article does include a link to Wikipedia Review, showing that even friendly, sympathetic reporters don't seem to share the "Linking to attack sites is EVIL!" taboo.
And Daniel once again demonstrates that all conversation threads on Wikien-l ultimately will devolve to a very limited set of topics. Is there some way we can combine BADSITES with Spoiler Warnings? I know, I'll go propose a policy that we can't link to any site that contains/does not contain (pick whichever pisses you off more) spoilers.
On 17/12/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:13:45 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really not sure this has faded as much as you make out. I mean, I stumbled across *yet another* of those "let's look at Wikipedia, isn't it really exciting" articles today entirely by accident - http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid52864.aspx
But I'll note that this positively-toned article does include a link to Wikipedia Review, showing that even friendly, sympathetic reporters don't seem to share the "Linking to attack sites is EVIL!" taboo.
People outside a community don't share that community shibboleths! Film at eleven, as I believe they say. ;-)
It seems to me to be inevitable that any balanced piece over a page or two in length is going to link to WR (or a similar site), in much the same way as it's guaranteed to have a paragraph or two on Citizendium or Knol or whatever other competitor just got a press release issued.