On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:25:14 -0400, "David Goodman" dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Interesting that you perceive it as such. From the ArbCom findings:
Links to attack site 3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.
Support of harassment 7) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks.
Outing sites as attack sites 11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.
Since WR is an outing site, per principle 11, linking it is an attack, per principle 3, and those doing so are responsible for their actions, per principle 7. That's the strictly legalistic view.
But actually there is a *much* better reason for not linking it, which is that it is simply not an acceptable source. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
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.
No, the reason can be that it engages in harassment and outing, and is therefore dangerous to know. Honest reporting? Don't give me that. WR would not know honest reporting if it bit them on the arse. It exists solely to throw rocks at us, and easily nine out of ten of the rocks miss completely. So they had one direct hit? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you still would not recommend it to anyone who wanted to know the time.
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.
Not linking to attack and outing sites is one rule that will probably never change, because it stems from a much more fundamental and long-standing rule: don't be a dick.
Guy (JzG)