[WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy

[Rich Holton]

jayjg wrote:
> On 7/3/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>> jayjg wrote:
>>> On 7/2/07, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>> jayjg wrote:
>>>>> and no-one is going to insist on a banning if there is some incredibly
>>>>> important reason why one must be linked to under some bizarre and
>>>>> unforeseen turn of events.
>>>> But those turns of events are not, in fact, so bizarre or unforeseen.
>>> Yeah, they pretty much are. Rare events, and generally involving
>>> wiki-drama, not actually building an encyclopedia.
>> I'm not talking about wiki-drama, I'm talking about hypertext.
>> Wikipedia is a website.  Websites link to each other.  It turns
>> out it's an incredibly powerful and useful concept.  If whenever
>> we're talking about something said on site X -- whether this is
>> in an RFC or Arbitration case, or a topicality debate in project
>> space, or wherever -- and if site X happens to be on a secret
>> list of Sites One Must Not Link To, such that instead we're
>> supposed to use circumlocutions like describing the site in
>> words, or emailing a URL, instead of just making a hyperlink
>> like Time Berners-Lee intended -- if we insist on going through
>> this cutting-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face exercise, just so we
>> can feel good about not "endorsing" a site that has (perhaps
>> egregiously) wronged one of our editors, that's just an
>> incredibly frustrating and pointless waste of time.
> 
> It's only useful to link to sites that have useful content. Wikipedia
> has all sorts of rules about not linking to useless sites.
>>>> You claim that the blanket ban is acceptable because reasonable
>>>> people can decide to make exceptions if necessary.  But why go
>>>> that route?  Why not say that links -- to any site, anywhere --
>>>> which serve as attacks, are attacks, and are banned under NPA?
>>>> Why not let reasonable people realize that this is a sufficient
>>>> policy, that will disallow all the troublesome links just as
>>>> effectively as the blanket ban would?  What additional protective
>>>> power is gained by proactively applying the blanket ban?
>>> Well, let's say one links to the front page of an attack site, which
>>> doesn't actually contain any attacks,  but just links to all sorts of
>>> other pages that do.
>> So what?
>>
>> I wish you'd answer the question.  Why do we need a blanket ban?
>> How does it prevent Personal Attacks (in ways that WP:NPA can't)?
>> How does it help us build an encyclopedia?
> 
> That has been explained at length. Wikipedians volunteer their time to
> help in this project; as a result of that volunteer work, they are
> exposed to often vicious harassment by a small number of banned
> editors on websites. We should not in any way bring attention to those
> websites. It's common sense, good policy, and basic decency. Stop
> doing it.

Jay,

This does not explain the need for a blanket ban. It does explain the 
need for not linking to personal attacks, etc.