Delirium wrote: We don't know what the ''New York Times'' or ''Encarta'' use as their standards for sourcing (or if we do please send a link). Can anyone provide a link to an Encarta article that uses as a source a website that harasses Encarta editors? If we're to compare harassment and outing issues on Wikipedia to those in the traditional media then the Plame case may be more relevant. My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal advanced to resolve this problem, but it may not be the most helpful plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia due to their attempts to coerce WP editors. Here is a formulation: "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open wikis, that are actively engaged in lawsuits or harassment of Wikipedia or its editors are not reliable sources [unless proven otherwise] and should not be used as a source or external link in articles." That text excludes non-self published sources, like the ''New Yorker''. It allows for some flexibility in special cases. It doesn't deal with non-article space links at all. Further language would be needed to define "harassment", and to map out dispute resolution procedures. What's missing or in error from that proposal? -Will Beback

On 15/10/2007, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote: Probably because *in practice* the advocates (a) tend to keep doing the same ridiculous things (b) coming up with novel theories as to why policy fully supports them damaging the encyclopedia in pursuit of the same goals, each and every time. Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it. Seconded. The only purpose to this new formulation is to attempt to retcon justification for BADSITES-like behaviour. I'll keep calling it BADSITES as long as the behaviour fails to change. Indeed. This would have the added benefit of evidencing self-insight. - d.

On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: No, he's right. It's fundamental to the nature of the project, which is *a project to build an encyclopedia*. The community accreted around that project, around that overarching goal. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

I realize that. I don't know what you mean by this statement. David, I spend time reading many of the Talk, Discussion and whatever other Pages I have access to as a non-admin; and my informed read is that there are a great many very unhappy people in there. The mood is angry, the climate is cold, and the culture in trouble. And statements like "the Project is more important than the Community" not only reinforces the Members' feeling of second-class status, but serves, also, to give permission to those who would behave abusively to others. It's about attitudes, inclusion and respect. You are a very visible and vocal Member of the Wikipedia Community, and what you say carries more weight, with the more impressionable among us, than you may imagine within that Community. Marc

On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: (In general terms, there are no pages non-admins do not have access to. Well, there's a handful of technical ones. And the deleted pages. But no actual contentful discussion pages; there is nowhere on-wiki that The Secret Club Is Talking About You, or at least nowhere they could do it *easily*) Yes, the community has problems. I'd go so far as to say it's in some ways dysfunctional. But I really don't see how reasserting the basic values of this project is going to cause the community to get any *worse*. The community has problems because it's lost track of what it's trying to do and it's squabbling internally; it has problems because users are being dicks with power, or power they think they have. But that problem is - as much as anything else - because of users in positions of authority assuming the authority of "the community" in playing their games and political posturing, using the moral weight of a community who doesn't give a damn to browbeat their opponents. Of course David and I want a healthy community. But we know that the community wants to get on with writing an encyclopedia. The way to help the community be healthy is, well, to invoke mens sana in corpore sano; put our attention back to actually doing some work, take a harder line with the unrecoverable idiots, and the community will wake up again. No, it's a healthy assertion that we share fundamental common priorities and that the community are, on the whole, aware we're not here as a social activity. "Second-class"? Second-class to who? This isn't an admin clique trying to put itself above "the community". "The community" includes the admins - and wikien-l - as much as any other regular user - the project is still more important than them/us. Those behaving in some of the most insidiously abusive ways cry "protecting the community" as loudly as anyone, and mostly get away with waving the banner in the name of people who haven't heard of their petty squabbles and wouldn't care about them if they had. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Marc Riddell wrote: I don't see how that would really work. Why is the community here in the first place? Because we initiated a project to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and have gathered to do so. If we abandon that goal, might as well dissolve the community, too, since it will have failed in its reason for existence. Anything to promote a harmonious and effective community that does *not* damage the fundamental purpose of the project, on the other hand, is of course welcome. -Mark

On 10/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: In Will's defense (maybe), I'm not sure he meant to imply that his generalizations have firm basis in policy or guideline. —C.W.

Quoting Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net>et>: This doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a problem as the notion that attack sites are a priori unreliable. Michael Moore's website for example is a reliable source at minimum of what Moore thinks and likely of other things as well. We almost should not lose sight of the fundamental strangeness of having no links to MichaelMoore.com on [[Michael Moore]]. That said, I can more easily understand a ban on linking to problematic sites outside article space. In article space we may need them either for referencing or for external links. However, they don't serve nearly as useful a purpose on talk pages or elsewhere. The focus of the project is and always should be article space. What occurs in other spaces is only relevant in that context.

K P wrote: Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks". Will

John Lee wrote: At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I have to wonder: if Adolph Hitler were alive today and had a website, would we link to it from [[Adolph Hitler]]? At the risk of inciting someone here to delete it, I note that we *do* have an external link from [[Ku Klux Klan]] to www.kkk.com.

Steve Summit wrote: No, we would link to it from [[Adolf Hitler]]. [[Adolph Hitler]] is a redirect. Ec

Quoting Will Beback <will.beback.1(a)gmail.com>om>: It seems at this point we are just repeating the same essential arguments. Some people, like Will think that NPA can override optimal encyclopedia content. Others, like myself think that it cannot and should not. I, at least, find it is a bit ridiculous to not link to the official webpage of a famous person from the person's article simply because the person has a highly negative opinion about some Wikipedians. And I don't see this as substantially different as deciding not to link to say, the New York Times if they published an anti-Wikipedia editorial that attacked Essjay or published an article outing a Wikipedia editor.

Quoting Will Beback <will.beback.1(a)gmail.com>om>: Will, this still misses the basic issue. There's no good reason to treat Michael Moore's self-published site which we link to on his article any different than say Richard Dawkins, or Jonathan Sarfati simply because one of them choose to harass Wikipedia users. If the concern is solely that these aren't reliable sources then we should be removing all of them. The site's reliability has nothing to do with whether or not it attacks Wikipedia users. So if a major newspaper got into a fight with Wikipedia and actively harassed editors we would still link to them but not if it is a dinky one? Please explain how the harassement issue is any different? The only difference that I see is that advocating for the removal of the NYT links would heighten the absurdity of the position and so logical consistenct is sacrificed for rhetorical convenience. That may be harsh, but I really don't see any other explanation. If there is one, I'd very much like to hear it.

Quoting Will Beback <will.beback.1(a)gmail.com>om>: By these I meant the personal websites of Moore, Dawkins, Sarfati etc. If this is a proposal to add additional rules for evaluating what is a WP:RS then this is about as non-NPOV as we could get. It says that a source might be reliable, but if it has an extremist view about a Wikipedia editor then it is somehow less reliable. The arrogance of that stance is frankly astounding. Reliability has nothing to do with whom someone is feuding. If I'm missing something here I'd appreciate being told so. The crucial step in logic seems to be that self-published source becomes less reliable if it attacks Wikipedians. If that is the idea I'd like to hear the logic behind that in more detail.

William Pietri wrote: "Being mean" is OK, harassing is not. That's the case even if you're the person being harassed. If you're not clear on the distinction between criticism and harassment then maybe we should have a review. No part of NPOV requires that we link to the self-published sites of folks who are trying to improperly affect Wikipedia editing. It does require that we include all significant viewpoints, but can you give an example of a significant point of view that is only sourceable to someone who is actively harassing Wikipedia editors? W.

Will Beback wrote: Yes, I understand the difference, thanks. My point in saying that was that I think some of what people are considering sufficient cause to remove links does not meet what a DA would consider criminal harassment. And other people might consider it a public service. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It depends on your point of view. Regardless, you dodged the meat of my point entirely. You may go back and substitute "harassment" for "being mean" and I'll still stand by it. Well gosh, if a policy didn't anticipate and rule out your particular new proposal, then your proposal must be fine. Sorry I got all confused. I can give significant points of view that are best sourced to people who have committed genocide, Will. That somehow seems much more important. To me, anyhow. William -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri