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

David Goodman dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Sun Jul 8 17:25:14 UTC 2007

To start with, I thank you for the admission that the ArbCom decision
did not itself specifically justify the removal of the references or
the banning of this particular site.

The real argument for refusing to link to a particular site can only
be that none of its material can possibly be objective, since they
make a habit of inserting unsourced and unjustifiable material. But
that discards the good as well as the bad--the number given above was
10% good. Do you think that WP editors are unable to tell the good
from the bad? Honest reporting includes all pertinent documentation.
As  the arb com ruling does not permit this, it is wrong as being a
rejection of the fundamental principle of using verifiable
information--all verifiable information.

This does not mean I intend to violate it, or suggest that anyone
should. There are other present rules I do not think wise, but I
follow them, while hoping that ways will be found to change them.

On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:56:12 +0100, "James Farrar"
> <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >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.
> >> So you say.  I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate
> >> reason for linking to WR.
> >"there hasn't been one yet" != "there will never be one".
> And?  This seems to be a very lengthy argument about nothing, if
> that's the limit of it.
> Actually, though, what has happened is that people have inserted links
> to a source which conspicuously fails any rational definition of
> reliability, and these links have been, quite rightly, removed.
> Wikilawyering over precisely /why/ is pretty silly.  Sure, the wrong
> reason may have been cited, but it doesn't take much thought to
> realise that this is a crap source and linking to it is inappropriate
> on a number of levels.
> Wikilawyering over how we /must/ be able to link to this particular
> site because it's not mentioned by name in an ArbCom ruling, although
> that ruling contains three principles which unquestionably indicate
> that it should not be linked, is even sillier.  We don't need a policy
> to say "don't link to sites that attack and try to out Wikipedia
> editors".  It's covered  by "don't be a dick".  Nor do we need a
> specific finding that such-and-such a site that attacks and attempts
> to out Wikipedians is covered by a ruling on sites that attack and
> attempt to "out" Wikipedians, even if that ruling was delivered in
> response to a different site.  The fact that we should not link to
> sites which make a habit of attacking and trying to "out" people who
> would rather remain anonymous should hardly need to be stated, it is
> so blindingly obvious.
> Compare and contrast the hysteria occasioned by revealing the mere
> fact of an editor using Tor, with the equal hysteria generated by
> those who would like to be able (should there ever turn out to be a
> decent reason, none such having yet been advanced) to link to a site
> which comprehensively destroys the anonymity of some people against
> whom, as it happens, some particularly vicious trolls harbour a
> grudge.
> I consider this perverse.
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list