[WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Fri Jul 6 10:18:42 UTC 2007
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge at telus.net]
>Sent: Friday, July 6, 2007 03:50 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>>If you chose to be roadkill, so be it. I consider it a minor matter. That so much ink was wasted on the issue has little or nothing to do with you. Just keep on editing and enjoy contributing.
>>We must not only support our productive contributors and administrators, our workers, we must also make it plain that doing so is a priority. Protecting the "right" to link to critical posts on external websites, is pretty low on the list of priorities. However, let''s assume you are a good editor and you can assume we are trying our best and had nothing against you personally and go from there.
>It IS a minor matter, but for the fact that a small gang of obsessives
>wants to flex its muscles by insisting on its right to impose discipline
>on anyone who links to a site they don't like, and then support their
>actions with the utterly spurious excuse that it somehow protects
>people. If you want these users to assume that you are trying your
>best, you must also assume that they are trying their best, and be
>willing to treat them as equals. If you choose to block someone solely
>for linking to such sites it's you, not them, that is making it a
>personal issue, smarmy consolings notwithstanding.
>You must know by now that very few of us will even think of linkig to
>such sites, not even those of us who see such hard-line attitudes as a
>form of bullying. Had you chosen a more pragmatic approach, the
>arguments would have ceased long ago. People with a legitimate reason
>for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with
>attitude would face the wrath of the whole community. Those who make
>such links out of bad faith are unlikely to confine thier activity to
>only one single act of bad faith.
I hope you make a choice to support our productive editors and administrators and do what is needful to protect them from harassment by external sites. I know it is frustrating and offensive to be forced to do what you would do voluntarily and with insight.
If a naive editor got caught up in a major controversy that is a shame. However, the bold pronouncements that the "vague" arbitration remedy was void and the ignoring of warnings argue for a disingenuous breaching experiment. A ban is open to such theater. The alternative is to open the site to drama, a move which would not have a happy outcome.
A dull site, devoted to work on the encyclopedia will serve our readers and productive contributors better.
More information about the WikiEN-l