"Wily D" wrote
A regular editor may well be legitimately concerned that linking to Slate will get them banned - and *even if* this particular question was asked disingenuously, somebody else is going to be wondering the same thing in all honesty.
Let's get the scenario straight. Even if Slate were somehow classified as a site to which one should not link (not going to happen), and even if some editor links to Slate, it would take there being a very good reason not to link to the specific page, and then an obstinate defence of linking in the teeth of advice not to, before anything actionable in ArbCom terms has occurred. If some loose cannon of an admin decides they can "ban" someone independent of such a case, it is they who are more likely to end up in court, for abuse of admin powers.
Any real fracas over linking in this general area ought to be sorted out by proper Wikipedian interactions. Everyone still needs to exercise good judgement, with respect to those interactions, just as much as in what to link to.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 10/11/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Wily D" wrote
A regular editor may well be legitimately concerned that linking to Slate will get them banned - and *even if* this particular question was asked disingenuously, somebody else is going to be wondering the same thing in all honesty.
Let's get the scenario straight. Even if Slate were somehow classified as a site to which one should not link (not going to happen), and even if some editor links to Slate, it would take there being a very good reason not to link to the specific page, and then an obstinate defence of linking in the teeth of advice not to, before anything actionable in ArbCom terms has occurred. If some loose cannon of an admin decides they can "ban" someone independent of such a case, it is they who are more likely to end up in court, for abuse of admin powers.
Any real fracas over linking in this general area ought to be sorted out by proper Wikipedian interactions. Everyone still needs to exercise good judgement, with respect to those interactions, just as much as in what to link to.
Charles
Charles - I agree with all of this. What is unreasonable is to expect every editor to be aware of it - *especially* when they're not allowed to ask.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Let's get the scenario straight. Even if Slate were somehow classified as a site to which one should not link (not going to happen), and even if some editor links to Slate, it would take there being a very good reason not to link to the specific page, and then an obstinate defence of linking in the teeth of advice not to, before anything actionable in ArbCom terms has occurred.
I see you haven't been following the controversy. It's about links to attack *sites*, not links to specific pages that have attacks on them. The idea is that if a site is an attack site, *any link to that site at all* regardless of whether the specific page linked to contains anything bad, is verboten.
So yes, under the proposal, the scenario could happen.