"David Gerard" wrote
On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of BADSITES-like policies).
Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other works there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of BADSITES-like policies).
Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other works there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
Then for God's sake please say this expressly, else the querulous will assume you're justifying removing a well-source and verifiably notable name of an attack site that's achieved real-world notability. You remember, the actual cause of the case being brought!
- d.
Quoting charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
"David Gerard" wrote
On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in
this context
refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of BADSITES-like policies).
Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other works there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
So we can name sites in article space like antisocialmedia.net but can't have the article link to them? Can someone explain to how this makes any sense at all? Oh, yes that one saved click is really going to make it less harassing. This is in many ways the worst possible combination. We are sacrificing the integrity of article space for an at best marginal benefit.
On 17/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
So we can name sites in article space like antisocialmedia.net but can't have the article link to them? Can someone explain to how this makes any sense at all? Oh, yes that one saved click is really going to make it less harassing. This is in many ways the worst possible combination. We are sacrificing the integrity of article space for an at best marginal benefit.
I'd suggest this one is not a problem in practice - we already don't put in http:// links to shock sites, just listing the address in plain text.
The problem that brought about the BADSITES arbitration was that people were deleting the *name* antisocialmedia.net from [[Judd Bagley]] under "no personal attacks." That is, community policies interfering with encyclopedic coverage.
- d.