On 8 Apr 2007 at 15:38, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
the article it's in. Wikipedia Review most likely does not have relevance to any article except maybe [[en:Daniel Brandt]]; whether it should be linked there or not is a content decision based on its notability. But a blanket ban on links to "attack sites" is silly, even if we could define what that meant.
Not to mention that, since the (actual or potential) ban on such links has been interpreted as applying to talk and project pages as well, it would suppress the ability to cite content in such sites when discussing potential legal threats to Wikipedia, and the like, which are being discussed there. But I suppose we can just all put our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist.
On 4/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Not to mention that, since the (actual or potential) ban on such links has been interpreted as applying to talk and project pages as well, it would suppress the ability to cite content in such sites when discussing potential legal threats to Wikipedia, and the like, which are being discussed there.
And legal threats would be addressed by email/fax/phone to the foundation as was discusse on the ANI and BADSITES talk page and pointed out to you.
But I suppose we can just all put
our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist.
Or not go out of our way to endorse a website that seeks to do material harm to us, Dan. Your a regular there, are you not?
What do you post about there? Do you ask them to shut down threads such as "Who is Jayjg?" and so forth? Or just hang out with the zealots that are trying to unearth everyone's identity?
Denny Colt wrote:
On 4/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
But I suppose we can just all put
our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist.
Or not go out of our way to endorse a website that seeks to do material harm to us, Dan.
Nobody is arguing that we "go out of our way to endorse" any website; we should never "go out of our way to endorse" anything *at all* in Wikipedia articles, whether positive or negative or neither, since our job is to write a neutral encyclopedia. But we also should not specifically develop different rules for content that affects *us* specifically. Wikipedia must be able to write about things that affect Wikipedia as neutrally as it writes about everything else. So I think it's quite wrong to advocate treating "sites that attack Wikipedia" differently from "sites that attack Some Other Entity". In this particular case there may well be no good reason to link to the site, but that should have nothing to do specifically with the fact that it attacks *us* as opposed to attacking someone else or not attacking anyone.
-Mark