[WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to"attack sites"

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On 29 Apr 2007 at 22:24, "John Lee" <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Actually, our article on [[Goatse.cx]] does link to the site -- not 
at its original address (which is no longer functional), but at a 
mirror site that contains the same content.

It seems that quite often, in the course of debates like this, when 
somebody cites some example of a site that Wikipedia chooses not to 
directly link to, it turns out that they are mistaken and we do in 
fact link to it at some place where it makes sense to do so.  This 
only underscores the point that flat bans on any sort of links do not 
reflect actual consensus of the editors.

-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/