Jayjg wrote:

Somebody asserted that it could be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to sites like WR. I challenged that person to provide concrete examples of how. Soon afterwards hysterical rhetoric ensued, policies and insults flying left and right, impassioned cries of "censorship", babies being murdered, death stars being blown up, heat death of the universe, etc. The usual.

This description is mostly mischaracterization of the discussion. The part about "babies being murdered," for example, is based on a complete misreading. Someone who supports the BADSITES policy argued awhile back that use of BADSITES as a pretext for systematically removing links to the "Making LIght" website was merely a case of someone misinterpreting the policy and didn't reflect badly on the policy itself. The argument was that the policy shouldn't be rejected simply on the basis of an instance of it being misused. The specific phrase used was "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater," where the "baby" meant the BADSITES policy. This in turn led to several subsequent postings that mentioned babies and bathwater, including one posting by an opponent of the BADSITES policy who said something about not murdering the baby. It was a bit of playful wordplay, not the sort of hysterical rhetoric you're making it out to be. Maybe you hadn't followed the whole thread and just didn't get the reference.

As for death stars being blown up, heat death of the universe, etc., that's just Jayjg adding some hyperbole to exaggerate his point. No one here actually talked about death stars.

On another matter -- the stuff about "pedophiles" -- Jayjg is correct that I was confusing him with someone else. It was Slim Virgin who wrote the hypothetical stuff about someone being called a pedophile. My apologies.

But since Jayjg says he doesn't support a policy of censorship, I hope he can clarify something for me. Suppose someone writes an item for Signpost or their user talk page that mentions and links to something on Wikipedia Review. I gather that Jayjg generally thinks linking to WR is a bad idea, but just suppose that someone who feels differently DOES create such an item. (Maybe they want to critique something amusingly ridiculous that Daniel Brandt has written.) Jayjg, since you don't support censorship, does that mean you do NOT advocate systematically purging such links from Signpost and user talk pages? It's okay with you if they remain, even though you personally would prefer that they weren't there?

-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------