-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman@spamcop.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 03:09 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:01:21 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Look, it's very obvious to all of us on the
list that WR isn't a reliable
source. What we're saying is that it isn't to others, and that threatening
them with blocking isn't any greater an idea than threatening someone who
cites Joe Bloggs' blog as a source with a block.
Unless, of course, they continue to press the issue. If someone posts
it and it's removed and we tell them why, fine. If they continue to
re-insert it then a warning is entirely appropriate, just as a warning
is appropriate if people keep inserting a blog as a source. We do
this all the time.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
People who fail to understand what constitutes a reliable source are not usually blocked.
I can visualize an inexperienced or naive using finding interesting material on an attack
site which seems to be usable as a reference, or at least interesting. The problem arises,
as it does with other users who fail to appreciate what is an appropriate external link,
with users who after explanations and warnings repeatedly reinsert inappropriate links.
As pointed out repeatedly, there are limited instances where a link is appropriate, for
example as evidence of the nature of a site, or of a rave which turn out to have been well
founded. Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
Bottom line, our main responsibility in this area is to support our productive users and
administrators by taking reasonable steps to protect them from harassment either on the
wiki or by external attack sites.
Fred