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

[Steve Summit]

Charli Li wrote:
> As the original poster has said:
>> We should "know thine enemy"; we shouldn't act like a mind-control 
>> cult trying to stop its members from finding out about critics...

Um, you are aware that while you are advocating banning links to
Wikipedia Review, Dan Tobias is advocating *allowing* them.

> Obviously the site has violated NPA,

Obviously that site is a hideous, hideous site.
But it's not obvious that banning links to it will change that
in any way.

> and even on the NPA policy page, it says that :
>
>> Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted
>> threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the
>> substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the
>> suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another
>> editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of
>> the attack.
>
> This site is an external source of personal attacks.

Those words, "in a manner that incorporates the substance of
that attack into Wikipedia discussion" are significant.

If I say, "Dan Tobias is an idiot", that's a personal attack.
If I say, "Dan Tobias is an idiot, and look, Wikipedia Review
agrees with me: http://wikipediareview.com/dan-tobias-idiocy.html",
that's a personal attack which incorporates the substance of an
external personal attack.

But if I say, "Wikipedia Review is planning to sue us",
that's obviously no personal attack; it's a simple statement.
And if I say, "Wikipedia Review is planning to sue us -- see
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7045", that's a
simple statement backed up by a citation, and we *like* those.