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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> >It's *basic common sense* not to
> >link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless
> >absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common
> >sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not
> >personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host
> >personal attacks.
> No it's not.  Let's say (to take an unambiguous article) you have a
> white supremacist article, and you choose not to link to articles on
> that site in respect of their opinion on prominent black people. Would
> you then link to their recipes pages just because they are good
> recipes?  Or would you look for an alternative and less contentious
> source for the same content?

That's not an argument to not link to a white supremacist site.

That's an argument to not link to a white supremacist site unless you can't
find an alternative and non-contentions source.

The idea that it's *generally* a bad idea to link to attack sites is not
really controversial.  What is controversial is the idea that that policy
should be followed blindly, with absolutely no exceptions no matter what
the details of the situation.  

In your analogy, you could look for an alternative source, and most of the
time you could find one.  Recipes are, after all, pretty common.  Only under
a set of rare circumstances would the white supremacist site actually be the
best source for the recipe link.  But "a set of rare circumstances" is
not "never".