-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:35 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 14/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I must have missed something. Are there people seriously advocating that [[Michael Moore]] cannot contain a link to michaelmoore.com? If so, I'd say this proves beyond doubt that the policy-that-can't-be-called-BADSITES really is unworkable, that the bizarre repercussions which some have predicted are not only realistically possible, but have already happened.
They have seriously tried to remove the link from the article as containing a personal attack on a Wikipedia editor (which it arguably did) and edit-warred to keep it off, yes.
- d.
_______________________________________________
No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like) yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like) yields removal of the link
Is this tongue-in-cheek, or are you actually suggesting that we ought to be applying this sort of "unwritten rule" in this manner?
(At least while it contained the personal attack).
Yeah, I just noticed that, too. The edit war died down and our link was restored not because all concerned agreed that the policy-that-must-not-be-called-BADSITES was nonsense, but because Moore removed his link. If his was still there, I'm sure our argument would still be raging.
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
Steve Summit wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
We're already breaking NPOV simply by trying to suppress article-space links that specifically attack Wikipedia users, IMO. It puts Wikipedia users in a privileged position with regards to article contents.
Would BADSITES have lasted even five seconds if it had been about suppressing links to websites that were critical of Republicans, or Democrats, or whatever other group one cares to substitute? You'd have been able to see the crater left by the NPOV Hammer from wiki-orbit.
On 10/14/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
We're already breaking NPOV simply by trying to suppress article-space links that specifically attack Wikipedia users, IMO. It puts Wikipedia users in a privileged position with regards to article contents.
Would BADSITES have lasted even five seconds if it had been about suppressing links to websites that were critical of Republicans, or Democrats, or whatever other group one cares to substitute? You'd have been able to see the crater left by the NPOV Hammer from wiki-orbit.
The difference is, of course, is that the sets of Democrats or Republicans are not even close to completely congruent with the set of Wikipedia editors.
We can and should protect our editors from harassment and the like, but not at the cost of the encyclopaedia. BADSITES, and policies which resemble it, harm the encyclopaedia. Fred may be right in that we eventually avoid ludicrous outcomes (e.g. michaelmoore.com was eventually restored to [[Michael Moore]]), but not at the cost of immense wikidrama which we could do without. If the policy needs so frequent debate about what exceptions it needs, there's a good clue that the policy is broken and needs restructuring.
Johnleemk
I disagree that protecting our editors from harassment must come at a cost to the encyclopedia's content. We remove links, sources, and participants day and night in order to improve it. Let me compare this to three other situations: spam, fan forums, and lawsuits.
I remove dozens of commercial spam links to every week. Arguably, those many of those links could provide some benefit to readers. An article on recreational vehicles may, in some folks mind, be improved by providing links to stores selling RV accessories or used RVs. Yet we've decided that commercial links are inappropriate because they would overwhelm the articles and because they do not provide any actual content. Their harm outweighs their good. Likewise, links to external harassment that drives away valuable editors also cause more harm than good.
Fan forums and blogs are routinely deleted (with very few exceptions) because they do not provide reliable information for our readers whether used as a source or for further reading. Forums and blogs that engage in active harassment of editors of a reference work are even less reliable as sources for that reference work.
Finally, we do not allow people who have said they are planning to sue the WMF to edit Wikipedia because they have an unavoidable conflict of interest. So does someone using harassment. The person in charge of a self-published site that is harassing Wikipedia editors is trying to affect the project in inappropriate ways. We can't stop them from doing so but we should not view them as neutral or even reliable sources while they pursue their agenda against the project and its volunteers.
In all three of these cases restricting inappropriate links, sources, and participation improves the encyclopedia instead of harming it.
W.
On 10/14/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree that protecting our editors from harassment must come at a cost to the encyclopedia's content. We remove links, sources, and participants day and night in order to improve it. Let me compare this to three other situations: spam, fan forums, and lawsuits.
I remove dozens of commercial spam links to every week. Arguably, those many of those links could provide some benefit to readers. An article on recreational vehicles may, in some folks mind, be improved by providing links to stores selling RV accessories or used RVs. Yet we've decided that commercial links are inappropriate because they would overwhelm the articles and because they do not provide any actual content. Their harm outweighs their good. Likewise, links to external harassment that drives away valuable editors also cause more harm than good.
Is this an appropriate parallel to the official website of a famous person?
Fan forums and blogs are routinely deleted (with very few exceptions)
because they do not provide reliable information for our readers whether used as a source or for further reading. Forums and blogs that engage in active harassment of editors of a reference work are even less reliable as sources for that reference work.
So michaelmoore.com is an unreliable source, period? Last time I checked self-authored blogs were one of the few sources considered acceptable for biographies.
Finally, we do not allow people who have said they are planning to sue
the WMF to edit Wikipedia because they have an unavoidable conflict of interest. So does someone using harassment. The person in charge of a self-published site that is harassing Wikipedia editors is trying to affect the project in inappropriate ways. We can't stop them from doing so but we should not view them as neutral or even reliable sources while they pursue their agenda against the project and its volunteers.
Ironically, it is just as arguable that the person being harassed has a conflict of interest as well.
In all three of these cases restricting inappropriate links, sources,
and participation improves the encyclopedia instead of harming it.
Nobody's disputing that in some cases, these restrictions improve the encyclopaedia. To assert that we improve the encyclopaedia by removing links to any blog or forum which harasses our editors is a bit of a stretch, nevertheless. In most cases, we don't link to these sites because there is no good reason to; you are now asserting we should go further and never link to them even if there is a good reason to.
Johnleemk
W.
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 10/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree that protecting our editors from harassment must come at a cost to the encyclopedia's content. We remove links, sources, and participants day and night in order to improve it. Let me compare this to three other situations: spam, fan forums, and lawsuits.
I remove dozens of commercial spam links to every week. Arguably, those many of those links could provide some benefit to readers. An article on recreational vehicles may, in some folks mind, be improved by providing links to stores selling RV accessories or used RVs. Yet we've decided that commercial links are inappropriate because they would overwhelm the articles and because they do not provide any actual content. Their harm outweighs their good. Likewise, links to external harassment that drives away valuable editors also cause more harm than good.
Is this an appropriate parallel to the official website of a famous person?
Fan forums and blogs are routinely deleted (with very few exceptions)
because they do not provide reliable information for our readers whether used as a source or for further reading. Forums and blogs that engage in active harassment of editors of a reference work are even less reliable as sources for that reference work.
So michaelmoore.com is an unreliable source, period? Last time I checked self-authored blogs were one of the few sources considered acceptable for biographies.
Finally, we do not allow people who have said they are planning to sue
the WMF to edit Wikipedia because they have an unavoidable conflict of interest. So does someone using harassment. The person in charge of a self-published site that is harassing Wikipedia editors is trying to affect the project in inappropriate ways. We can't stop them from doing so but we should not view them as neutral or even reliable sources while they pursue their agenda against the project and its volunteers.
Ironically, it is just as arguable that the person being harassed has a conflict of interest as well.
In all three of these cases restricting inappropriate links, sources,
and participation improves the encyclopedia instead of harming it.
Nobody's disputing that in some cases, these restrictions improve the encyclopaedia. To assert that we improve the encyclopaedia by removing links to any blog or forum which harasses our editors is a bit of a stretch, nevertheless. In most cases, we don't link to these sites because there is no good reason to; you are now asserting we should go further and never link to them even if there is a good reason to.
Johnleemk
W.
This is in fact the case, there is simply no reason to link to most of these sites. In the case of the article on Michael Moore, the link is to a site BY the subject person of the article. It's like discussing Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn but never mentioning the title of the book because it's offensive.
We have plenty of other good, non-torturous reasons to not to link to blogs. They're not reliable sources of information. But if the article is about the blog, there should be a link to the blog that is being discussed.
If there is no reason to discuss the site, if it's not notorious, or famous, if there's no reason for it to be in Wikipedia, then there's no reason to link it.
Blogs are not reliable references for articles, they are opinion pieces.
If the blog is known and has an article, or the website is the official site of a celebrity, it should be linked. This is a cyberspace project, to pretend that cyberspace does not exist is just going to make us look ridiculous and lead to no end of conversations and bad behaviour and notoriety.
However, a victim of a stalker is not the equivalent of a stalker.
If someone is using Wikipedia as their medium for harrassing an Wikipedia editor, that doesn't make the Wikipedia editor who is being harrassed complicit in their victimhood and equally guilty of abusing Wikipedia.
To say say that because you're being stalked by another person who found you on Wikipedia gives you, the victim, a conflict of interest in Wikipedia empowers the stalker to the point of the ridiculous--it will make Wikipedia the favorite place in the known universe of stalkers everywhere to be granted their every dream: entangling the victim hopelessly without recourse and with plenty of blame in their lives. Do you realize that a stalker doesn't even have to know their victim's name to begin stalking them? Stalking takes place first in the mind of the stalker.
Stalkers count on being able to manipulate others besides their victim to create a tie where there is none. Assigning equal quilt for the problem of stalking to the victims is precisely what stalkers are seeking--there are seldom any crimes today where this is still done. It used to be everywhere, not just in some countries, that victims of rape are held culpable for being raped. This is the case in only a few countries, though. Most of the world today does not assign a victim guilt in the crime done to them. Stalking is abberant behaviour, and it is a crime. The victim is not the guilty party, and is not equal to their attacker in this.
The courts and the psychiatric community has long since realized that stalkers do not have to be aided by their victims, and that victims are not the cause of their being stalked. Please don't say that they have an arguably equal conflict of interest, when they don't have to ever engage their stalker in any way to be made a victim, whereas the stalker has to actively target and attempt to engage not just their victim, but the community on behalf of the stalker targetting the victim. Granting this to the stalker is way beyond acceptable.
KP
On 10/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> However, a victim of a stalker is not the equivalent of a stalker.
If someone is using Wikipedia as their medium for harrassing an Wikipedia editor, that doesn't make the Wikipedia editor who is being harrassed complicit in their victimhood and equally guilty of abusing Wikipedia.
One person is trying to insert a link into an article. Another person is trying to remove that link. We should not care which one is a longstanding editor; the important thing is what benefits the encyclopaedia. Sometimes a link to the harasser's site serves a purpose (michaelmoore.com), and sometimes it does not. It's impossible to draw a single line here. Those who are harassed have a conflict of interest because they often do not want to see a personal attack on them linked to, but this is a factor that should not be considered over benefit to the encyclopaedia.
In short: do what benefits the encyclopaedia. If it does not matter whether the link is there or not, then obviously we side with the harassed editor, but otherwise, we cannot let personal wishes dictate the content of Wikipedia.
To say say that because you're being stalked by another person who
found you on Wikipedia gives you, the victim, a conflict of interest in Wikipedia empowers the stalker to the point of the ridiculous--it will make Wikipedia the favorite place in the known universe of stalkers everywhere to be granted their every dream: entangling the victim hopelessly without recourse and with plenty of blame in their lives. Do you realize that a stalker doesn't even have to know their victim's name to begin stalking them? Stalking takes place first in the mind of the stalker.
Since when was it an insult to point out that people have strong opinions about the malignment of their character?
Stalkers count on being able to manipulate others besides their victim
to create a tie where there is none. Assigning equal quilt for the problem of stalking to the victims is precisely what stalkers are seeking--there are seldom any crimes today where this is still done. It used to be everywhere, not just in some countries, that victims of rape are held culpable for being raped. This is the case in only a few countries, though. Most of the world today does not assign a victim guilt in the crime done to them. Stalking is abberant behaviour, and it is a crime. The victim is not the guilty party, and is not equal to their attacker in this.
People are not guilty for removing links to websites. People are guilty for removing links to websites which supplement and benefit the encyclopaedia, and this applies regardless of their standing as an editor or how much we like them. The point I was trying to make here is that we have been letting the subject of harassment overshadow this whole debate - that it is something which must be given secondary consideration in light of the encyclopaedia's primacy.
The courts and the psychiatric community has long since realized that
stalkers do not have to be aided by their victims, and that victims are not the cause of their being stalked. Please don't say that they have an arguably equal conflict of interest, when they don't have to ever engage their stalker in any way to be made a victim, whereas the stalker has to actively target and attempt to engage not just their victim, but the community on behalf of the stalker targetting the victim. Granting this to the stalker is way beyond acceptable.
We are not talking about people who sit back when harassed. We are talking about people who launch witch hunts which ultimately hurt the encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk
On 10/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> However, a victim of a stalker is not the equivalent of a stalker.
If someone is using Wikipedia as their medium for harrassing an Wikipedia editor, that doesn't make the Wikipedia editor who is being harrassed complicit in their victimhood and equally guilty of abusing Wikipedia.
One person is trying to insert a link into an article. Another person is trying to remove that link. We should not care which one is a longstanding editor; the important thing is what benefits the encyclopaedia. Sometimes a link to the harasser's site serves a purpose (michaelmoore.com), and sometimes it does not. It's impossible to draw a single line here. Those who are harassed have a conflict of interest because they often do not want to see a personal attack on them linked to, but this is a factor that should not be considered over benefit to the encyclopaedia.
In short: do what benefits the encyclopaedia. If it does not matter whether the link is there or not, then obviously we side with the harassed editor, but otherwise, we cannot let personal wishes dictate the content of Wikipedia.
To say say that because you're being stalked by another person who
found you on Wikipedia gives you, the victim, a conflict of interest in Wikipedia empowers the stalker to the point of the ridiculous--it will make Wikipedia the favorite place in the known universe of stalkers everywhere to be granted their every dream: entangling the victim hopelessly without recourse and with plenty of blame in their lives. Do you realize that a stalker doesn't even have to know their victim's name to begin stalking them? Stalking takes place first in the mind of the stalker.
Since when was it an insult to point out that people have strong opinions about the malignment of their character?
Stalkers count on being able to manipulate others besides their victim
to create a tie where there is none. Assigning equal quilt for the problem of stalking to the victims is precisely what stalkers are seeking--there are seldom any crimes today where this is still done. It used to be everywhere, not just in some countries, that victims of rape are held culpable for being raped. This is the case in only a few countries, though. Most of the world today does not assign a victim guilt in the crime done to them. Stalking is abberant behaviour, and it is a crime. The victim is not the guilty party, and is not equal to their attacker in this.
People are not guilty for removing links to websites. People are guilty for removing links to websites which supplement and benefit the encyclopaedia, and this applies regardless of their standing as an editor or how much we like them. The point I was trying to make here is that we have been letting the subject of harassment overshadow this whole debate - that it is something which must be given secondary consideration in light of the encyclopaedia's primacy.
The courts and the psychiatric community has long since realized that
stalkers do not have to be aided by their victims, and that victims are not the cause of their being stalked. Please don't say that they have an arguably equal conflict of interest, when they don't have to ever engage their stalker in any way to be made a victim, whereas the stalker has to actively target and attempt to engage not just their victim, but the community on behalf of the stalker targetting the victim. Granting this to the stalker is way beyond acceptable.
We are not talking about people who sit back when harassed. We are talking about people who launch witch hunts which ultimately hurt the encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk
"People who launch witch hunts which ultimately hurt the encyclopedia?"
Okay, Isee this remark was made to introduce your agenda to the discussion. I'm not interested.
KP
On 10/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> However, a victim of a stalker is not the equivalent of a stalker.
If someone is using Wikipedia as their medium for harrassing an Wikipedia editor, that doesn't make the Wikipedia editor who is being harrassed complicit in their victimhood and equally guilty of abusing Wikipedia.
One person is trying to insert a link into an article. Another person is trying to remove that link. We should not care which one is a
longstanding
editor; the important thing is what benefits the encyclopaedia.
Sometimes a
link to the harasser's site serves a purpose (michaelmoore.com), and sometimes it does not. It's impossible to draw a single line here. Those
who
are harassed have a conflict of interest because they often do not want
to
see a personal attack on them linked to, but this is a factor that
should
not be considered over benefit to the encyclopaedia.
In short: do what benefits the encyclopaedia. If it does not matter
whether
the link is there or not, then obviously we side with the harassed
editor,
but otherwise, we cannot let personal wishes dictate the content of Wikipedia.
To say say that because you're being stalked by another person who
found you on Wikipedia gives you, the victim, a conflict of interest in Wikipedia empowers the stalker to the point of the ridiculous--it will make Wikipedia the favorite place in the known universe of stalkers everywhere to be granted their every dream: entangling the victim hopelessly without recourse and with plenty of blame in their lives. Do you realize that a stalker doesn't even have to know their victim's name to begin stalking them? Stalking takes place first in the mind of the stalker.
Since when was it an insult to point out that people have strong
opinions
about the malignment of their character?
Stalkers count on being able to manipulate others besides their victim
to create a tie where there is none. Assigning equal quilt for the problem of stalking to the victims is precisely what stalkers are seeking--there are seldom any crimes today where this is still done. It used to be everywhere, not just in some countries, that victims of rape are held culpable for being raped. This is the case in only a few countries, though. Most of the world today does not assign a victim guilt in the crime done to them. Stalking is abberant behaviour, and it is a crime. The victim is not the guilty party, and is not equal to their attacker in this.
People are not guilty for removing links to websites. People are guilty
for
removing links to websites which supplement and benefit the
encyclopaedia,
and this applies regardless of their standing as an editor or how much
we
like them. The point I was trying to make here is that we have been
letting
the subject of harassment overshadow this whole debate - that it is something which must be given secondary consideration in light of the encyclopaedia's primacy.
The courts and the psychiatric community has long since realized that
stalkers do not have to be aided by their victims, and that victims are not the cause of their being stalked. Please don't say that they have an arguably equal conflict of interest, when they don't have to ever engage their stalker in any way to be made a victim, whereas the stalker has to actively target and attempt to engage not just their victim, but the community on behalf of the stalker targetting the victim. Granting this to the stalker is way beyond acceptable.
We are not talking about people who sit back when harassed. We are
talking
about people who launch witch hunts which ultimately hurt the
encyclopaedia.
Johnleemk
"People who launch witch hunts which ultimately hurt the encyclopedia?"
Okay, Isee this remark was made to introduce your agenda to the discussion. I'm not interested.
I'm honestly confused. What agenda is that? I don't mind if you don't respond, because I don't have a specific agenda to push; all I intended to do was clarify my original remark.
Johnleemk
K P wrote:
To say say that because you're being stalked by another person who found you on Wikipedia gives you, the victim, a conflict of interest in Wikipedia empowers the stalker to the point of the ridiculous [...]
I see what you're saying, but I still think there's a reasonable point in the other side.
A while back, I was pretty energetic in pushing back against what I saw as spam and self-serving bias on an article. Eventually the external community involved decided that I was a meanie who had it in for them. They dug through my on-line history and came to assorted ridiculous conclusions about me.
Now I could have gotten outraged, fought back, etc, etc. But why? They thought I had a conflict of interest; I thought they were wrong. Who could know the truth? Given their behavior, a reasonable observer could wonder if I I might have harbored retaliatory feelings after what could be considered stalking. Heck, I would wonder from time to time.
So I just asked for help, and a kind fellow editor stepped in. (Thanks, A.B.!) We have enough articles and enough people that there seems to be little cost to swapping people around when there's big drama. And there's a lot of benefit.
William
John Lee wrote:
Nobody's disputing that in some cases, these restrictions improve the encyclopaedia. To assert that we improve the encyclopaedia by removing links to any blog or forum which harasses our editors is a bit of a stretch, nevertheless. In most cases, we don't link to these sites because there is no good reason to; you are now asserting we should go further and never link to them even if there is a good reason to.
Indeed, by priorising link removal criteria, with emphasis on the more easily defined ones, we would probably find that by the time we got down the list to harassment there wouldn't be many left to fight about.
Ec
Will Beback wrote:
[...] Yet we've decided that commercial links are inappropriate because they would overwhelm the articles and because they do not provide any actual content. Their harm outweighs their good. Likewise, links to external harassment that drives away valuable editors also cause more harm than good.
More specifically, I think spammy links are of more harm than benefit *to our readers*. That's not the case with links to harassment, which is about possible harm to editors.
But not all links to such material are harmful even to the targets of the harassment, so the parallel you draw is tenuous. Further, removing links to entire sites because of something on some of their pages is a huge step away from why we remove spam. If somebody spams a link to an NYT article about their company far and wide, we might block that link, but we would never remove all NYT links.
Fan forums and blogs are routinely deleted (with very few exceptions) because they do not provide reliable information for our readers whether used as a source or for further reading. Forums and blogs that engage in active harassment of editors of a reference work are even less reliable as sources for that reference work.
A forum or blog that harasses our editors shouldn't be linked to in an article not because of the harassment, but because it is a forum or blog lacking reliable information. There's no need to bring other factors in.
As for linking in places other than article space, your parallel doesn't apply at all; blogs and fan forums can be freely linked.
Finally, we do not allow people who have said they are planning to sue the WMF to edit Wikipedia because they have an unavoidable conflict of interest. So does someone using harassment. The person in charge of a self-published site that is harassing Wikipedia editors is trying to affect the project in inappropriate ways. We can't stop them from doing so but we should not view them as neutral or even reliable sources while they pursue their agenda against the project and its
Well, I don't think that's really why we block legal threat-makers. But even if a conflict of interest with Wikipedia were the sole issue, your comparison is still false. Just because somebody has an issue with Wikipedia doesn't make them an unreliable source in their areas of expertise.
If somebody is harassing Wikipedia editors, we might not want to use them as a source in an article about Wikipedia. But that's about as far as you can take it.
William
On 10/14/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:35 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 14/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I must have missed something. Are there people seriously advocating that [[Michael Moore]] cannot contain a link to michaelmoore.com? If so, I'd say this proves beyond doubt that the policy-that-can't-be-called-BADSITES really is unworkable, that the bizarre repercussions which some have predicted are not only realistically possible, but have already happened.
They have seriously tried to remove the link from the article as containing a personal attack on a Wikipedia editor (which it arguably did) and edit-warred to keep it off, yes.
- d.
No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like) yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).
Fred
I don't like Michael Moore very much at all, although "Roger and Me" is one of my all time favorite films. He's too predictable these days, though, and sings only one note. I don't know the user involved. I don't see any reason to not post Michael Moore's personal website in his article--it does make us look like laughig stocks. But Wikipedia too readily falls into traps of this nature: the loudest rudest voices get to dictate policy.
KP