The latest skirmish in the never-ending civil war over linking to so- called "attack sites" is the one where [[User:Will Beback]] has taken onto himself to purge Wikipedia of all links to the site of notable science fiction editor [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]], even though they are used as reliable sources for quite a number of diverse things, because in her blog she attacked Beback (she seems to have some issues with Wikipedia in general).
This has in turn spurred a renewed edit-war over whether the anti- attack-site section should even be in the WP:NPA page, and the page is now under protection again as a result.
See my essay for more on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
On 5/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The latest skirmish in the never-ending civil war over linking to so- called "attack sites" is the one where [[User:Will Beback]] has taken onto himself to purge Wikipedia of all links to the site of notable science fiction editor [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]], even though they are used as reliable sources for quite a number of diverse things, because in her blog she attacked Beback (she seems to have some issues with Wikipedia in general).
This has in turn spurred a renewed edit-war over whether the anti- attack-site section should even be in the WP:NPA page, and the page is now under protection again as a result.
See my essay for more on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
Why the hell is BADSITES being enforced so mindlessly and so religiously and so utterly retardedly? It's completely beyond me. Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that the status quo, enforced by a group of well-meaning zealots who I am tempted to label idiots as well (but will not, for the sake of civility), is not serving the encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk
On 28/05/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The latest skirmish in the never-ending civil war over linking to so- called "attack sites" is the one where [[User:Will Beback]] has taken onto himself to purge Wikipedia of all links to the site of notable science fiction editor [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]], even though they are used as reliable sources for quite a number of diverse things, because in her blog she attacked Beback (she seems to have some issues with Wikipedia in general). This has in turn spurred a renewed edit-war over whether the anti- attack-site section should even be in the WP:NPA page, and the page is now under protection again as a result. See my essay for more on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
Why the hell is BADSITES being enforced so mindlessly and so religiously and so utterly retardedly? It's completely beyond me. Anyone with a shred of common sense can see that the status quo, enforced by a group of well-meaning zealots who I am tempted to label idiots as well (but will not, for the sake of civility), is not serving the encyclopaedia.
Is it worth requesting a clarification from the ArbCom that this was not meant as an excuse to act like a dick?
- d.
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Is it worth requesting a clarification from the ArbCom that this was not meant as an excuse to act like a dick?
Only if you want people to respond by starting some rather nasty arguments over whether or not people are dicks.
Arbcom should stay out of the business of writing policy because it is pretty clear they are not any good at it.
On 5/28/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Is it worth requesting a clarification from the ArbCom that this was not meant as an excuse to act like a dick?
Only if you want people to respond by starting some rather nasty arguments over whether or not people are dicks.
Arbcom should stay out of the business of writing policy because it is pretty clear they are not any good at it.
It's pretty clear that it's not what we're supposed to be doing, and that interpreting arbcom decisions as definitive guides to policy in all cases is apt to error. Given the brief nature of arbcom decisions, we don't go into sufficient detail as to reasoning and the like, so taking an aspect of our decision apart from the case it was attached to may lack important nuance.
-Matt
On 28/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty clear that it's not what we're supposed to be doing, and that interpreting arbcom decisions as definitive guides to policy in all cases is apt to error. Given the brief nature of arbcom decisions, we don't go into sufficient detail as to reasoning and the like, so taking an aspect of our decision apart from the case it was attached to may lack important nuance.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I say "take care not to craft a stick for idiots." I suppose I should amend that to "for idiocy."
- d.
On 28/05/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The latest skirmish in the never-ending civil war over linking to so- called "attack sites" is the one where [[User:Will Beback]] has taken onto himself to purge Wikipedia of all links to the site of notable science fiction editor [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]], even though they are used as reliable sources for quite a number of diverse things, because in her blog she attacked Beback (she seems to have some issues with Wikipedia in general).
...the Making Light thread on Wikipedia was an "attack site?" For goodness' sake, *I* wrote chunks of it...
See my essay for more on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
BADSITES always was a bad idea that looked seductively good...