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

[Rich Holton]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Ec
> 

Very well stated!