With him the only time it was appropriate not to link to him was when he had a link to edit a user's page on his main page. He soon quit doing that.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Delirium [mailto:delirium@hackish.org] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 02:42 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
That is not the basis on which sites are banned. They are banned because they scapegoat Wikipedia editors and administrators. SlimVirgin is not to blame for the imaginary failures of Wikipedia; she, and people like her are responsible for our real success. Scapegoating her gets us absolutely nowhere.
That may be true, but we look mighty odd when we react differently to scapegoating that relates to us than we do to scapegoating that relates to others. If someone famous scapegoats people, there's not really much we can do about it. Maybe Michael Moore shouldn't be making idiotic comments, but for better or worse he's famous and he does. We have plenty of his idiotic comments reported many of our articles, but it seems that when they're about *us* suddenly we get a lot more touchy. Which is a bit too self-referential for a neutral, descriptive encyclopedia.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/20/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
With him the only time it was appropriate not to link to him was when he had a link to edit a user's page on his main page. He soon quit doing that.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Delirium [mailto:delirium@hackish.org] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 02:42 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
That is not the basis on which sites are banned. They are banned because they scapegoat Wikipedia editors and administrators. SlimVirgin is not to blame for the imaginary failures of Wikipedia; she, and people like her are responsible for our real success. Scapegoating her gets us absolutely nowhere.
That may be true, but we look mighty odd when we react differently to scapegoating that relates to us than we do to scapegoating that relates to others. If someone famous scapegoats people, there's not really much we can do about it. Maybe Michael Moore shouldn't be making idiotic comments, but for better or worse he's famous and he does. We have plenty of his idiotic comments reported many of our articles, but it seems that when they're about *us* suddenly we get a lot more touchy. Which is a bit too self-referential for a neutral, descriptive encyclopedia.
-Mark
That's a great clarification. I haven't seen anything that explicit in the Arbcom case proposed decision so far...
PLEASE, give us some guidance that can stick, if (collective you) are going to make the policy any more specific.
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
With him the only time it was appropriate not to link to him was when he had a link to edit a user's page on his main page. He soon quit doing that.
I still don't think that was appropriate. A link to Michael Moore's website makes sense on the article on [[Michael Moore]]. I don't see why we should special-case exempt ourselves. Will we also remove the link if he posts baseless criticism of someone not connected to Wikipedia?
-Mark