[WikiEN-l] Suppression of links to 'attack sites'?

[Charli Li]

Daniel R. Tobias just had to cough out the following stream of bytes
from the specified email client, on 4/7/2007 1:22 PM:
> Recently, [[User:DennyColt]] has created an essay article, 
> [[WP:BADSITES]], that advocates banning all links to sites that are 
> considered to be "attack sites".  Although this is an essay, and 
> explicitly says that it is not a policy, he then proceeded to invoke 
> his own essay in pursuing a draconian campaign to suppress all links 
> to Wikpedia Review, an anti-Wikipedia web forum.  In doing so, he did 
> things that are normally considered to be against Wikipedia policy, 
> such as altering other people's comments on talk and project pages, 
> and editing archive pages and closed AfDs.
>
> While I am on the record as strongly critical of the tone and 
> atmosphere of the WR site, I am also strongly against the imposition 
> of a flat ban on linking to it, even on user, talk, and project 
> pages.  This is part of a consistent position I have of opposing all 
> flat bans on linking to particular sites other than blatant spam 
> sites of the "Buy Herbal Viagra Now" variety (and even *those* might 
> have rare cases where links to them are appropriate, such as when 
> methods used by spammers are being discussed and criticized).
>
> When one is engaged in a discussion about those sites themselves, and 
> the people on them, and the things they're saying, we are tying our 
> own hands if we can't cite specific things there in the course of the 
> discussion.  For instance, there's a very interesting thread that 
> discusses this very "anti-attack-site" campaign:
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7988
>
> I don't know about the merits of the legal claims that guy is making 
> (does fair use for the purpose of commentary require citing and 
> linking to the source?) but some of his points about how absurd 
> various talk-page comments became once "redacted" by Denny are right 
> on target.  But how would I be able to comment on this if I weren't 
> allowed to link to the thread involved?
>
> We should "know thine enemy"; we shouldn't act like a mind-control 
> cult trying to stop its members from finding out about critics and 
> what they have to say, but we should encourage our editors to read 
> such criticism -- and refute it on the many occasions where it's 
> wrongheaded.  But occasionally the critics say something right, too.  
> Anyway, when they're threatening to sue Wikipedia and its editors, 
> shouldn't we make ourselves aware of this?  Banning all links to the 
> site would prevent that too.
>   
I would agree 100% on banning linking to this site.  I don't know about
editing each other's comments, but probably putting the link in an HTML
comment, and then say, in small text, that "this is a link to an attack
site" or something like this.  But an initiative should be made so that
nobody links to that site.

-- 
Charli
I'm pleased that the Ministry of Culture is protecting the morals of the
expat bankers and their girlfriends that are going to be coming. ~Mick
Jagger