On 26 Aug 2007 at 17:00:07 +0100, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: [long line rewrapped in accordance with RFC 2822]
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
- Anti-pedophile site Perverted Justice set up a redirect based on
HTTP referrers so that anybody following links to any page in their site from Wikipedia get redirected to a criticism page that blasts Wikipedia for not cracking down on pedophile editors. This made the whole thing an "attack site" according to some who seem to think that anything that has anything critical to say about Wikipedia is an "attack" that must not be linked to.
Question: What connection would there be between compiling an encyclopedia, and linking to any site which took the step of redirecting incoming links to somewhere not intended?
I mentioned what was ultimately done in response to the redirection, the changing of links to unlinked URLs in places where they're needed as references. Such a forced redirection should be treated like any other case where a link is made less usable, like a "404 Not Found" dead link, a page retreating behind a registration-required login wall, a site redesign leading to it being inaccessible in some browser versions or full of annoying, intrusive ads... in all of these cases, the use of the link needs to be reconsidered, possibly changed to a "nowiki" URL or to an archived copy somewhere else or to an alternate site with similar content, and possibly the site owner should be informed of the unusability of their link in an encyclopedia and encouraged to fix it. But in none of these cases is there the "moral panic" of saying "They're an eeeeeeeeeeeevil Attack Site and all references to it need to be DESTROYED!!!!!!!"
I have a few thoughts to express on this issue:
BADSITES is not a policy, but NPA is a core policy. The external links section of NPA deals directly with this issue.
However, Wikipedia is not a person. So any "attack" on Wikipedia that does not single out individual volunteer contributors would, in my opinion, not be covered at all by NPA. Attacks on Wikipedia that promote disruption must surely be covered by another policy, but it would not be NPA. Legitimate criticism of the project itself is not something I would consider necessarily an attack, or a promotion of disruption.
I also draw a distinction between a website that might have a personal attack against a contributor embedded in a sub page, and one that has the attack on their main index page. In the former case, if one is linked to a completely different sub page, one would have to really go looking for that attack. In the latter case, all one has to do is click "home" to find it.
I don't claim to have the solution to this problem, but these aspects should be considered.
Crockspot
On 8/26/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 26 Aug 2007 at 17:00:07 +0100, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: [long line rewrapped in accordance with RFC 2822]
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
- Anti-pedophile site Perverted Justice set up a redirect based on
HTTP referrers so that anybody following links to any page in their site from Wikipedia get redirected to a criticism page that blasts Wikipedia for not cracking down on pedophile editors. This made the whole thing an "attack site" according to some who seem to think that anything that has anything critical to say about Wikipedia is an "attack" that must not be linked to.
Question: What connection would there be between compiling an encyclopedia, and linking to any site which took the step of redirecting incoming links to somewhere not intended?
I mentioned what was ultimately done in response to the redirection, the changing of links to unlinked URLs in places where they're needed as references. Such a forced redirection should be treated like any other case where a link is made less usable, like a "404 Not Found" dead link, a page retreating behind a registration-required login wall, a site redesign leading to it being inaccessible in some browser versions or full of annoying, intrusive ads... in all of these cases, the use of the link needs to be reconsidered, possibly changed to a "nowiki" URL or to an archived copy somewhere else or to an alternate site with similar content, and possibly the site owner should be informed of the unusability of their link in an encyclopedia and encouraged to fix it. But in none of these cases is there the "moral panic" of saying "They're an eeeeeeeeeeeevil Attack Site and all references to it need to be DESTROYED!!!!!!!"
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
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 26/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 26 Aug 2007 at 17:00:07 +0100, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: [long line rewrapped in accordance with RFC 2822]
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
- Anti-pedophile site Perverted Justice set up a redirect based on
HTTP referrers so that anybody following links to any page in their site from Wikipedia get redirected to a criticism page that blasts Wikipedia for not cracking down on pedophile editors. This made the whole thing an "attack site" according to some who seem to think that anything that has anything critical to say about Wikipedia is an "attack" that must not be linked to.
Question: What connection would there be between compiling an encyclopedia, and linking to any site which took the step of redirecting incoming links to somewhere not intended?
I mentioned what was ultimately done in response to the redirection, the changing of links to unlinked URLs in places where they're needed as references. Such a forced redirection should be treated like any other case where a link is made less usable, like a "404 Not Found" dead link, a page retreating behind a registration-required login wall, a site redesign leading to it being inaccessible in some browser versions or full of annoying, intrusive ads... in all of these cases, the use of the link needs to be reconsidered, possibly changed to a "nowiki" URL or to an archived copy somewhere else or to an alternate site with similar content, and possibly the site owner should be informed of the unusability of their link in an encyclopedia and encouraged to fix it. But in none of these cases is there the "moral panic" of saying "They're an eeeeeeeeeeeevil Attack Site and all references to it need to be DESTROYED!!!!!!!"
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
It doesn't matter if the attack site is 'evil' or not. It doesn't even matter if the content actually qualifies as an 'attack' (by whatever standards), or is just hurtful to someone. It's about protecting people (usually editors, but not always) from psychological harm, or occasionally other types of harm.
Again, courtesy blankings and deletions are not sanctions against any one.