On 11 Oct 2007 at 02:53:08 -0400, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:

The point *is* that the steaming piles of crap are out there and that they don't go away if we ignore them. The point is that protecting our editors from harm is impossible (or is self-defeating if we insist on trying) if we hold that editors are harmed by mere mentions of steaming piles of crap that (a) are out there and (b) everybody else knows about. The point is that the knee-jerk "attack sites bad, bans on attack sites good" argument is not nearly so clear-cut as its proponents would like to make it.

The fact is that our taboo on "linking to attack sites" is not one that's widely shared out in the real world. This Slate case is just one of many examples. The New York Times linked to Antisocialmedia when writing about the conflict that site is involved in. The well- respected and notable blog Language Log regularly links to Encyclopedia Dramatica to give examples regarding Internet memes. Bloggers and commentators talking about how horribly evil some of the attack sites are often link to them in order to give examples to support their points. The "Never link to those sites... that's EVIL!" viewpoint is not what comes naturally to many people.