On 9/20/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: KP For the most part these sites shouldn't be linked, you're right. For that, we don't need ArbCom to say "No linking to Encyclopaedia Dramatica" - we all already know that, and anyone who doesn't can be educated, and anyone who still doesn't get it can be educated with extreme prejudice. ;) But MichaelMoore.com? Slashdot? Conservapedia? There are legitimate encyclopaedic reasons to link to these (specifically, [[Michael Moore]], [[Slashdot]] and [[Conservapedia]]. And given the way the quality of "attack sites" is rising, it may not be long before we're talking about purging links to GlobeandMail.com or Princeton.edu The "Oh, it's just WilyDisagoatfucker.blogspot.com, there'll never be any encyclopaedic reason for wanting to link to it" been proven false three times that I know of. People worried about the unclear language in what's going on are not overreacting. Cheers, WilyD

On 9/20/07, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote: But why link to these sites? MichaelMoore.com would be linked in his article, and, where relevant, and when relevant, the site would be linked in other articles possibly when another source is discussing Michael Moore. But it sounds like there are tons of links to these sites all over Wikipedia. Of the three, Michael Moore is not the best example, because he genuinely generates controversy that is related to many other people, and I can see him having many links. I don't know what slashdot is. I think I know what Conservapedia is, but it was about as boring as Wikipedia Review, with less diversity of material. Although if you're scraping scum off the bottom of the barrel, having a greater variety of bottom feeders eating and producing that scum, may not be that worthwhile. I'm afraid that I don't see the controversy in this whole thing. I do know, however, that there is no one on Wikipedia who could explain it in a couple of paragraphs, with a couple of links, so that an outsider not deeply enmeshed in the sourrounding intrigue might understand. KP

Hi, Matthew. Sorry for the length, but I couldn't figure out how to make my point clear otherwise. Matthew Brown wrote: That's a great point, and would help explain why this is such an ongoing source of argument. I try to avoid arguments that are just about principles, as they rarely lead anywhere interesting. Well, perhaps not quite. For example, the argument over whether truth or beauty is the higher value is often interesting. But still, I don't expect it to be settled this millennium. Personally though, I think this dust-up a big deal because of something pretty practical. When some Wikipedia issue catches my eye, the first thing I do is to dig through the the history to see what's what and who's whom. That's where a lot of my confidence in Wikipedia comes from. First, I got to see how the articles really did improve over time. Then I came to know the people through the records of their on-Wiki history. And finally, I came to trust the system, because it enables anybody to do the same vetting I did. With recent rise of the BADSIDES stuff, I can't do that, as the record is being edited with a bias, and pressure is applied to people to bias future discussion in the same way. It is breaking one of the fundamental mechanisms through which I have come to trust Wikipedia and its participants. So, for example, when I hear mention banning links to the AntiSocialMedia.net guy, I go and look at his website. He seems a little kooky, and he sure has an axe to grind, so I start out suspicious of anything he has to say. But there my investigation stops, because there is little or nothing about it on Wikipedia, and I get the impression I will be painted three shades of bad for bringing it up. This leaves me with a basketful of questions and accusations, and no resolution. The best I can get is that semi-proper authorities, who seem to be much closer personally to one side than the other, tell me they have investigated and that it's all swell. Maybe I'm a little damaged because I came to political awareness in the post-Nixon era, but having faith in authority has never been one of my stronger skills. So each time one of these suppressed incidents comes to my attention, I trust Wikipedia a little less. Because the record of any conversation may have been censored, I now have to be a little suspicious of almost everything on Wikipedia, especially if it involves someone who's socially prominent enough to make that kind of censorship happen. Really, if it were just me, it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm a minor editor and even more minor administrator; Wikipedia will get along without my trust. But what it won't get along without is the trust of new editors and the general public. And I firmly believe that having our own damnatio memoriae policy will harm that broader trust, just like it has for me. William -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

K P wrote: No doubt. Quietly removing junk links is not the same as having a big fuss over whether the same links should be aggressively blocked. When one of these junk links is restored a wise admin will consider whether it might be worthwhile to wait a week or a month before trying the deletion again. The current debate takes things to another level. I certainly doubt that the large number of Wikipedians advocating a moderate approach in this thread would ever spend time adding the kinds of links that are sought to be blocked. They are not out to do harm to Wikipedia or any of its editors; where they disagree with each other they know when to stop (usually). One would expect that sooner or later that those pursuing a vendetta-like hard line would get the point. Ec