On 8 Jul 2007 at 12:26:36 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Me, I take a more practical view. WR has no known editorial process, and is a festering den of banned vanity spammers and other malcontents. What they say about Wikipedia has no discernable authority, it is a textbook case of an unreliable source.
Fine... that's a reasonable line of argument when it comes to considering using that site as a source. However, using that argument makes the issue a content dispute, where the proper way to resolve it is through calm, reasonable discussion on the talk page... not by threatening to block people on the other side of the dispute. That makes it a very different thing from the blanket link ban being pushed. There are plenty of sites out there that are probably not very good sources for most (or all) things... somebody has recently cited The Register in that regard. However, those sites don't have a whole clique out to vigorously suppress all reference to them, even on talk pages.
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:43:43 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Fine... that's a reasonable line of argument when it comes to considering using that site as a source. However, using that argument makes the issue a content dispute, where the proper way to resolve it is through calm, reasonable discussion on the talk page...
Not really. See the principles in the MONGO arbitration. Linking to harassment sites may be considered harassment. Don't do it.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:43:43 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Fine... that's a reasonable line of argument when it comes to considering using that site as a source. However, using that argument makes the issue a content dispute, where the proper way to resolve it is through calm, reasonable discussion on the talk page...
Not really. See the principles in the MONGO arbitration. Linking to harassment sites may be considered harassment. Don't do it.
"may be"? If we shouldn't link to them at all (as implied by "Don't do it") then shouldn't it be "is harassment" instead?
Johnleemk
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:59 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. See the principles in the MONGO arbitration. Linking to harassment sites may be considered harassment. Don't do it.
"may be"? If we shouldn't link to them at all (as implied by "Don't do it") then shouldn't it be "is harassment" instead?
Wikilawyering. There may be theoretical cases where it is defensible, this is not one of them.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:59 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. See the principles in the MONGO arbitration. Linking to harassment sites may be considered harassment. Don't do it.
"may be"? If we shouldn't link to them at all (as implied by "Don't do
it")
then shouldn't it be "is harassment" instead?
Wikilawyering. There may be theoretical cases where it is defensible, this is not one of them.
I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do it", I thought it referred to the last action you mentioned - "Linking to harassment sites". I suppose it would have been clearer if you said "Linking to harassment sites with the intent of harassing someone", but then the tautology would have become very obvious, wouldn't it?
What I'm trying to say is, the proponents of a blanket ban on linking to attack sites, without regard for the intentions of those linking to said sites (and/or assuming that those who link to such a site must obviously be acting in bad faith) are not going to get very far, because as even you acknowledge, this sort of blanket ban is ridiculous.
Johnleemk
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:04:04 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do it", I thought it referred to the last action you mentioned - "Linking to harassment sites". I suppose it would have been clearer if you said "Linking to harassment sites with the intent of harassing someone", but then the tautology would have become very obvious, wouldn't it?
No, "don't do it" in the sense of don't do it. Linking to harassment sites is forgivable the first time, because poeple might not know, but it rapidly becomes unacceptable if pressed, because even if *they* don't see it as harassing, *others* (specifically those harassed by the site) may well do. I can be perceived as harassment without being intended as such.
What I'm trying to say is, the proponents of a blanket ban on linking to attack sites, without regard for the intentions of those linking to said sites (and/or assuming that those who link to such a site must obviously be acting in bad faith) are not going to get very far, because as even you acknowledge, this sort of blanket ban is ridiculous.
In theory, yes. In practice I am still waiting for an example which is not obviously unacceptale. I am also pointing out that the fact of ED being the only site named in that ArbCom case absolutely does not mean it's the only site covered, per the prinicples I quoted above. Some people seem to think only ED is covered, I would say they are wrong.
Guy (JzG)
On 09/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:45:59 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. See the principles in the MONGO arbitration. Linking to harassment sites may be considered harassment. Don't do it.
"may be"? If we shouldn't link to them at all (as implied by "Don't do it") then shouldn't it be "is harassment" instead?
Wikilawyering.
Is that your standard argument?
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:43:43 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" wrote:
Fine... that's a reasonable line of argument when it comes to considering using that site as a source. However, using that argument makes the issue a content dispute, where the proper way to resolve it is through calm, reasonable discussion on the talk page...
Not really. See the principles in the MONGO arbitration. Linking to harassment sites may be considered harassment. Don't do it.
The word "may" implies considerably more flexibility than a simplistic "Don't do it."
Ec