On 7/2/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of whether WR is covered by the MONGO ruling (it's not explicitly named, and we've sort of waffled back and forth on the issue for some time now): why exactly do we need to link to it? For our purposes, it's not a reliable source; we don't add links to random websites -- even *interesting* random websites -- in the same way we don't add links to tabloids. If we just enforce the existing policy on external links, the problem essentially goes away.
WR is a reliable source, and is used as such. That sounds preposterous? Then go see how many links there are to it: 193 as I write this. A substantial fraction, maybe half, are citations as evidence in a bunch of RfC/ArbCom cases.