-----Original Message----- From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 01:13 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to "attack sites"
On 4/26/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Two of the arbitrators involved in that decision (Fred and Jay) confirmed during a recent request for clarification that the rulings applied to any attack site, not just to ED ...
In my personal view, things in the 'Principles' or 'Findings of fact' sections in an arbitration case are not remedies. I am uncomfortable with people taking things said in that section as commands from the arbitration committee to do anything. If we wanted to explicitly rule that something should be done, it would be in 'Remedies' or 'Enforcement'.
In a sense, what we are saying there is that we believe that existing policy, precedent and/or common sense already contain those things. In this case, six Arbitrators considered not linking to attack sites as already covered by de facto policy.
The arbcom is a bad way to make new policy, since there are only a small number of us. We attempt to interpret existing policy for circumstances not explicitly considered by those policies, however.
I agree, but in this case, as you say, the removal of links to attack sites was seen by the ArbCom, and by many if not most administrators, as de facto policy, so I see no harm in creating a policy page to reflect that. Policy is supposed to reflect best practise.
Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of pointless fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
Sarah
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
Fred
On 4/27/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
On 4/26/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Two of the arbitrators involved in that decision (Fred and Jay) confirmed during a recent request for clarification that the rulings applied to any attack site, not just to ED ...
Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of pointless fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
I agree. They had a field day.
On 4/27/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/27/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
On 4/26/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Two of the arbitrators involved in that decision (Fred and Jay) confirmed during a recent request for clarification that the rulings applied to any attack site, not just to ED ...
Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of pointless fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
I agree. They had a field day.
It had a very strong [[straw man]] feel.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of pointless fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
I agree. They had a field day.
Are you accusing me of being phony, or objecting to the proposal because I post on WR (hint: I'm not on WR), or being a sockpuppet, or otherwise not sincerely objecting to the proposal because I think it's a bad idea?
On 4/28/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of
pointless
fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them,
so they could argue their points.
I agree. They had a field day.
Are you accusing me of being phony, or objecting to the proposal because I post on WR (hint: I'm not on WR), or being a sockpuppet, or otherwise not sincerely objecting to the proposal because I think it's a bad idea?
I find this whole discussion ludicrous. It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.
This crusade against linking to any website which hosts personal attacks, regardless of the value of individual pages hosted on the site, is beyond ridiculous. Its only founding is in an ambiguous ArbCom decision (as demonstrated by the different opinions of arbitrators about how to interpret it), and it lacks any grounding whatsoever in common sense.
We shouldn't be banning links on a site-by-site basis; if we are to ban them at all, ban linking on a page-by-page basis.The most authoritative biography of say, [[Daniel Brandt]], may be found on a website which also hosts personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. What ought we to do? Cite the damn biography, and don't link to any of the personal attacks. It's not that hard to do.
Johnleemk
On 4/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/28/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of
pointless
fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them,
so they could argue their points.
I agree. They had a field day.
Are you accusing me of being phony, or objecting to the proposal because I post on WR (hint: I'm not on WR), or being a sockpuppet, or otherwise not sincerely objecting to the proposal because I think it's a bad idea?
I find this whole discussion ludicrous. It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.
This crusade against linking to any website which hosts personal attacks, regardless of the value of individual pages hosted on the site, is beyond ridiculous. Its only founding is in an ambiguous ArbCom decision (as demonstrated by the different opinions of arbitrators about how to interpret it), and it lacks any grounding whatsoever in common sense.
We shouldn't be banning links on a site-by-site basis; if we are to ban them at all, ban linking on a page-by-page basis.The most authoritative biography of say, [[Daniel Brandt]], may be found on a website which also hosts personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. What ought we to do? Cite the damn biography, and don't link to any of the personal attacks. It's not that hard to do.
Johnleemk
That is exactly what I wanted to say, and if you put that in a policy, then I would wholeheartedly support it. ~~~~
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:31:33 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.
No it's not. Let's say (to take an unambiguous article) you have a white supremacist article, and you choose not to link to articles on that site in respect of their opinion on prominent black people. Would you then link to their recipes pages just because they are good recipes? Or would you look for an alternative and less contentious source for the same content? Or perhaps think to yourself that, after all, it's not that big a deal, so maybe best not to link to them and let people buy a recipe book?
There are some editors who have been so viciously attacked that any link to these sites, however innocuous the individual page, feels like a mortal insult. What's on these sites that justifies that pain?
Another way of looking at it: some trolls also contribute occasional good edits. In the end, if they continue trolling, they get blocked. Pragmatically, the costs outweigh the benefits.
The option to stop trolling is always open. The option not to violate the privacy of our editors is always open. The rules are not hard to grasp, and people who wilfully ignore them, really, are no loss.
Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites which is so self-evidently important that the article would be incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a print source, say).
Guy (JzG)
On 29/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites which is so self-evidently important that the article would be incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a print source, say).
Given your Neo-Nazi example ... if we had an article on them, it would be ridiculous not ot link to them.
- d.
On 4/29/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:31:33 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort,
unless
absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic
common
sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also
host
personal attacks.
No it's not. Let's say (to take an unambiguous article) you have a white supremacist article, and you choose not to link to articles on that site in respect of their opinion on prominent black people.
If the article is about a white supremacist organisation, it seems pretty dumb not to link to their website. [[WP:NPOV]] should take precedence, because we aren't supposed to endorse any particular point of view. Of course, [[WP:IAR]] may apply (IIRC we don't make proper links to very NSFW sites like Goatse or the Al-Qaeda beheading videos, but provide the URLs for people to copy and paste if they really want to see them), but it's all on a case-by-case basis. Slapping a one-size-fits-all policy on this to cover all cases is retarded.
Would
you then link to their recipes pages just because they are good recipes? Or would you look for an alternative and less contentious source for the same content?
If they are the only source for a notable recipe, why on earth would you not want to link to them?
Or perhaps think to yourself that, after
all, it's not that big a deal, so maybe best not to link to them and let people buy a recipe book?
Again, case-by-case. Some recipes are particularly notable.
There are some editors who have been so viciously attacked that any
link to these sites, however innocuous the individual page, feels like a mortal insult. What's on these sites that justifies that pain?
If they are necessary for sourcing a particular article, if they are necessary to provide context for, I don't know, a debate on the merits of linking to attack sites, shall we say, why the hell would it be not justified to link to these sites? You are arguing that it can never be necessary to link to an attack site, even pages without attacks. If you actually think about it for five seconds, you might manage to see the major flaw in this reasoning.
Another way of looking at it: some trolls also contribute occasional
good edits. In the end, if they continue trolling, they get blocked. Pragmatically, the costs outweigh the benefits.
When trolls edit, we don't get to pick and choose what edits they make. When we link to websites, we get to choose what pages we link to. Flawed analogy.
The option to stop trolling is always open. The option not to violate
the privacy of our editors is always open. The rules are not hard to grasp, and people who wilfully ignore them, really, are no loss.
How is it violating the privacy of our editors to link to a page which contains no personal information, but does contain necessary information to provide context for a particular article or discussion?
Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites
which is so self-evidently important that the article would be incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a print source, say).
That mindless revert war on the Signpost comes to mind.
Johnleemk
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
There are some editors who have been so viciously attacked that any link to these sites, however innocuous the individual page, feels like a mortal insult. What's on these sites that justifies that pain?
[...]
Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites which is so self-evidently important that the article would be incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a print source, say).
I feel a lot of sympathy, but my main concern with this approach has two matching sides:
On our side, it's mainly a stick to hit people we don't like. It shifts focus away from building a good article and toward interpersonal and intergroup struggles.
On the external side, it creates drama in three ways: Those who feel unjustly targeted will seek retribution for our retribution. Griefers and trolls will use it as a goal to achieve, especially on somebody else's forum. And members of the public will note the excitement and do all the things people do around ongoing soap operas.
So personally, I'd rather avoid creating an official list of our enemies and I'd especially rather we didn't mandate every editor pay attention to it. I think that in the long run it will only increase the problem we're trying to eliminate.
William
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.
No it's not. Let's say (to take an unambiguous article) you have a white supremacist article, and you choose not to link to articles on that site in respect of their opinion on prominent black people. Would you then link to their recipes pages just because they are good recipes? Or would you look for an alternative and less contentious source for the same content?
That's not an argument to not link to a white supremacist site.
That's an argument to not link to a white supremacist site unless you can't find an alternative and non-contentions source.
The idea that it's *generally* a bad idea to link to attack sites is not really controversial. What is controversial is the idea that that policy should be followed blindly, with absolutely no exceptions no matter what the details of the situation.
In your analogy, you could look for an alternative source, and most of the time you could find one. Recipes are, after all, pretty common. Only under a set of rare circumstances would the white supremacist site actually be the best source for the recipe link. But "a set of rare circumstances" is not "never".
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:31:33 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.
No it's not. Let's say (to take an unambiguous article) you have a white supremacist article, and you choose not to link to articles on that site in respect of their opinion on prominent black people. Would you then link to their recipes pages just because they are good recipes? Or would you look for an alternative and less contentious source for the same content? Or perhaps think to yourself that, after all, it's not that big a deal, so maybe best not to link to them and let people buy a recipe book?
There are some editors who have been so viciously attacked that any link to these sites, however innocuous the individual page, feels like a mortal insult. What's on these sites that justifies that pain?
Another way of looking at it: some trolls also contribute occasional good edits. In the end, if they continue trolling, they get blocked. Pragmatically, the costs outweigh the benefits.
The option to stop trolling is always open. The option not to violate the privacy of our editors is always open. The rules are not hard to grasp, and people who wilfully ignore them, really, are no loss.
Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites which is so self-evidently important that the article would be incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a print source, say).
Guy,
Your example is so close to a straw-man as to make almost no difference. Let's talk about something a little more substantial than recipes, over which there has been much debate as to their mere existence in Wikipedia.
Besides, we're not talking just about articles here. We're talking about removing *all* links to attack sites from *every* page of Wikipedia in *every* space, without exception. Period. Do with a 'bot; no intelligence required. Is that really what you want to support?
-Rich