So, a couple threads over, the BADSITES debate is raging again. One of the principals in the argument claims it's dead, and that it's a non-issue because it was only ever a strawman proposed by a sockpuppet or something, but it sure looks like a real controversy, and smells like a real controversy, not to mention the fact that it's still quacking and quacking and quacking.
Having followed some (but by no means all) of the interminable debate, it seems to me it all boils down to three things:
1. If a link in article space is allegedly non-encyclopedic, it needs to be assessed according to WP:V or WP:RS or whatever the sourcing guideline du jour is.
2. If a link in non-article space serves to harass a Wikipedia editor, it needs to be dealt with in accordance with WP:NPA, which at times has (and IMO certainly should) treat such links just as seriously as on-wiki harassment.
3. If an off-wiki page, not linked to from article space or from non-article space, harasses a Wikipedia editor, it should either be ignored, or dealt with off-wiki. Nothing we do on-wiki can punish an off-wiki harasser, or force the off-wiki harasser to remove their harassing words from the net.
Moreover, we need to keep these three cases -- especially (1) and (2) -- *separate*. In particular, the decision to keep or remove an article-space link needs to be made on the basis of that link's contributions to encyclopedic content, *without* any confounding arguments about what the linked-to page (or some other page on the linked-to site) might happen to say about a Wikipedian. Any attempt to conflate the two arguments invariably leads -- as we've seen all too well -- to irreducible confusion. (And has been pointed out, the number of pages that simultaneously (a) provide useful encyclopedic content but (b) mention Wikepedia editors -- in any light -- is really pretty vanishingly small.)
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted, but which some people keep promoting under various guises -- is the notion that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about (and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES, despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether under that name or some other.
The defenders of the policies-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES keep claiming that their policies are not BADSITES, and that BADSITES is dead, and that stubborn insistence on debating BADSITES is distracting from the real work at hand. But as long as people keep using "abuse of Wikipedia editors!" as a factor in trying to delete links that don't abuse Wikipedia editors, and in trying to ban users who don't abuse Wikipedia editors, and in particular in writing policy about all of this, the rest of us are going to keep crying Foul!, and naming the foul "BADSITES", because that's what it smells exactly like.
Yes, we need to protect our editors and save them from harm. But we don't need to destroy the encyclopedia in order to save them.
On 22/11/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Having followed some (but by no means all) of the interminable debate, it seems to me it all boils down to three things:
- If a link in article space is allegedly non-encyclopedic, it needs to be assessed according to WP:V or WP:RS or whatever the sourcing guideline du jour is.
- If a link in non-article space serves to harass a Wikipedia editor, it needs to be dealt with in accordance with WP:NPA, which at times has (and IMO certainly should) treat such links just as seriously as on-wiki harassment.
- If an off-wiki page, not linked to from article space or from non-article space, harasses a Wikipedia editor, it should either be ignored, or dealt with off-wiki. Nothing we do on-wiki can punish an off-wiki harasser, or force the off-wiki harasser to remove their harassing words from the net.
3. is the one that IMO is most needed. The question is, of course: will it stand?
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted, but which some people keep promoting under various guises
These things being considered close enough to call the same by some, but different enough not to by others ...
-- is the notion that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about (and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES, despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether under that name or some other. Yes, we need to protect our editors and save them from harm. But we don't need to destroy the encyclopedia in order to save them.
Indeed. <-- personal opinion bit
- d.
On Nov 21, 2007 8:02 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted, but which some people keep promoting under various guises -- is the notion that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about (and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES, despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether under that name or some other.
The defenders of the policies-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES keep claiming that their policies are not BADSITES, and that BADSITES is dead, and that stubborn insistence on debating BADSITES is distracting from the real work at hand.
Who on earth are you talking about here? I hope not me; I was never involved in the original BADSITES strawman (never once made an edit to the page or Talk: page), nor have I been involved in any of its subsequent alleged re-incarnations, variations, alternatives, etc. Is there someone in particular you are referring to?
On 22/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 8:02 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted, but which some people keep promoting under various guises -- is the notion that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about (and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES, despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether under that name or some other. The defenders of the policies-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES keep claiming that their policies are not BADSITES, and that BADSITES is dead, and that stubborn insistence on debating BADSITES is distracting from the real work at hand.
Who on earth are you talking about here? I hope not me; I was never involved in the original BADSITES strawman (never once made an edit to the page or Talk: page), nor have I been involved in any of its subsequent alleged re-incarnations, variations, alternatives, etc. Is there someone in particular you are referring to?
Go back a step, pretend Steve's email doesn't contain words matching /B?DS?T?S/ and see what you think of the notions presented therein and please respond with your views on their workability.
- d.
On Nov 22, 2007 11:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 8:02 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted, but which some people keep promoting under various guises -- is the notion that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about (and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES, despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether under that name or some other. The defenders of the policies-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES keep claiming that their policies are not BADSITES, and that BADSITES is dead, and that stubborn insistence on debating BADSITES is distracting from the real work at hand.
Who on earth are you talking about here? I hope not me; I was never involved in the original BADSITES strawman (never once made an edit to the page or Talk: page), nor have I been involved in any of its subsequent alleged re-incarnations, variations, alternatives, etc. Is there someone in particular you are referring to?
Go back a step, pretend Steve's email doesn't contain words matching /B?DS?T?S/ and see what you think of the notions presented therein and please respond with your views on their workability.
But it had the evil word in it, and it's still in the thread topic. It's a well-known medical fact that any use of or exposure to that word, or even reference to the original strawman, immediately shut downs all rational thought on any wikien-l thread or Wikipedia Talk: page discussion. ;-)
On 11/22/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But it had the evil word in it, and it's still in the thread topic. It's a well-known medical fact that any use of or exposure to that word, or even reference to the original strawman, immediately shut downs all rational thought on any wikien-l thread or Wikipedia Talk: page discussion. ;-)
Is this a mutation of [[Godwin's law]]
On 11/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go back a step, pretend Steve's email doesn't contain words matching /B?DS?T?S/ and see what you think of the notions presented therein and please respond with your views on their workability.
So, none of the following words:
BDS BDSS BDTS BDSTS DBDS DBDSS DBDTS DBDSTS
How does this help exactly?
Steve. (The other one. The regex pedant.)
jayjg wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 8:02 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
What we truly do not need... is the notion that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep talking about (and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES, despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether under that name or some other.
The defenders of the policies-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES keep claiming that their policies are not BADSITES, and that BADSITES is dead...
Who on earth are you talking about here? I hope not me...
What on earth are you being so defensive about?
Is there someone in particular you are referring to?
No one person, no.
I was talking about anyone who advocates things like blanket bans of links to "attack sites". Who advocates removal of otherwise-useful links because the linked-to page (or site) happens to contain something which is construed as being harassing of Wikipedians. Who holds that "supporting our editors and protecting them from harm" requires sanitizing the website so that nothing can be seen which could upset an aggrieved editor, or cause anyone else to ask an aggrieved editor an uncomfortable question. I was talking about the notion that "off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin" that we must necessarily adopt "extreme sanctions which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals". I was talking about anyone who doth protest too much. :-)
In short, I was talking about anyone who advocates removing links not because they attack a Wikipedia editor, but because they secondarily or tertiarily or hypothetically attack a Wikipedia editor. Those are the aspects that I didn't like about that old, dead, proposed policy, but which when I see advocated anew make me wonder whether the old policy perhaps isn't all dead, after all.
Several people (perhaps you're one of them; I don't try to keep track) seem to have a hard time with abstract arguments. They insist on names and diffs, and if the names and diffs are not provided, they suggest that the abstractly-described problem might not exist. But if the names and diffs *are* provided, either the namer is accused of having attacked the named, or else the discussion gets completely sidetracked onto the specifics of the named incident, resulting in a conclusion either that the named person didn't do anything wrong, or did something excusably wrong, or did something wrong but for an unrelated reason, or did something wrong which they've apologized for and which won't happen again. In any case, the abstract argument (but the one which would have mattered going forward) is forgotten.
But if you insist, I was thinking of people like the ones who defended the recent removal of links to Michael Moore's home page, or the recent removal of links to what's-his-name's blog (the one that linked to something about a conspiracy involving a Wikipedia editor and MI5).
And if you really insist, I was thinking specifically of Fred Bauder and either you or JzG. But I've only recently discovered that I had you and JzG completely conflated in my head, so I can't be sure which it was.
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Who advocates removal of otherwise-useful links because the linked-to page (or site) happens to contain something which is construed as being harassing of Wikipedians.
Let's be clear. Many of the links in question are harassing Wikipedians by any reasonable definition. What Michael Moore did was harassment pure and simple. Some of these cases that isn't what happened (for example Robert Black's blog had what almost amounted to a debunking of the MI5 claim). But many of the links we are dealing with are harassing and are done with the aim to make the lives of Wikipedia editors miserable so that they can be free to alter Wikipedia text to fit their ends. Let's not lose site of that.
On 23/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Who advocates removal of otherwise-useful links because the linked-to page (or site) happens to contain something which is construed as being harassing of Wikipedians.
Let's be clear. Many of the links in question are harassing Wikipedians by any reasonable definition. What Michael Moore did was harassment pure and simple. Some of these cases that isn't what happened (for example Robert Black's blog had what almost amounted to a debunking of the MI5 claim). But many of the links we are dealing with are harassing and are done with the aim to make the lives of Wikipedia editors miserable so that they can be free to alter Wikipedia text to fit their ends. Let's not lose site of that.
I hate to get back to this, but what did Michael Moore do that harrassed a wikipedian?
Peter
On 23/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com:
Who advocates removal of otherwise-useful links because the linked-to page (or site) happens to contain something which is construed as being harassing of Wikipedians.
Let's be clear. Many of the links in question are harassing Wikipedians by any reasonable definition. What Michael Moore did was harassment pure and simple. Some of these cases that isn't what happened (for example Robert Black's blog had what almost amounted to a debunking of the MI5 claim). But many of the links we are dealing with are harassing and are done with the aim to make the lives of Wikipedia editors miserable so that they can be free to alter Wikipedia text to fit their ends. Let's not lose site of that.
I hate to get back to this, but what did Michael Moore do that harrassed a wikipedian?
Peter
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Steve Summit:
Who advocates removal of otherwise-useful links because the linked-to page (or site) happens to contain something which is construed as being harassing of Wikipedians.
Let's be clear. Many of the links in question are harassing Wikipedians by any reasonable definition. What Michael Moore did was harassment pure and simple.
It's wrong to pretend that your delusions are also those of others.
Ec
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:07:17 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Let's be clear. Many of the links in question are harassing Wikipedians by any reasonable definition. What Michael Moore did was harassment pure and simple.
It's wrong to pretend that your delusions are also those of others.
So let's be clear here: you are right and anyone who disagrees is deluded, yes?
Guy (JzG)
Ec wrote:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Let's be clear. Many of the links in question are harassing Wikipedians by any reasonable definition. What Michael Moore did was harassment pure and simple.
It's wrong to pretend that your delusions are also those of others.
The call to arms against Wikipedia that appeared for a while on Moore's homepage was deeply questionable, and impossible to overlook. And while I have no desire to reopen that debate, the question for us as regards link removal in general is: if Michael Moore (or any notable figure) does something deeply questionable on his webpage, is it an appropriate sanction against that for Wikipedia to remove links from [[Michael Moore]] to Michael Moore's homepage? To many of us, it's drop-dead obvious that it's not appropriate (not to mention useless), but to others of us, it's equally clear that it's a blatantly obvious thing to do. It is difficult to reconcile these two viewpoints.
Michael Moore is not only a notable public figure, but what he's notable for is being a troublemaker. What he did to [[Roger B. Smith]] was quite arguably harassment, but of course he's celebrated for it. To the extent that Wikipedia has (a) become mainstream but (b) is still fallible, it's quite natural for Moore to criticize us, and in a characteristically Moorelike way. It would actually be wrong for Moore to *not* do that, so it becomes even harder (for me, anyway) to argue that Moore deserves sanction for it at all, let alone the ultimate death penalty of... having a link to his homepage removed.
Suppose Roger B. Smith had a publicly-editable wiki or blog, and Moore called on his readers to aggressively edit it. Would that be cause for us to delink Moore's homepage? Suppose Moore called for actual physical violence against Smith. Would that be cause? Suppose Moore posted Roger Smith's home address, and a picture of him, and called down a fatwa of death against him. Would that be cause for us to delink Moore's homepage?
And then, of course, there's the question of harassment transitivity. What Michael Moore did was harassment pure and simple, no question. But does that mean that to link to Michael Moore's home page is harassing of Wikipedians? That's much harder to argue.