[WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On 8 Jul 2007 at 12:26:36 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG 
<guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> Me, I take a more practical view.  WR has no known editorial process,
> and is a festering den of banned vanity spammers and other
> malcontents.  What they say about Wikipedia has no discernable
> authority, it is a textbook case of an unreliable source.

Fine... that's a reasonable line of argument when it comes to 
considering using that site as a source.  However, using that 
argument makes the issue a content dispute, where the proper way to 
resolve it is through calm, reasonable discussion on the talk page... 
not by threatening to block people on the other side of the dispute.  
That makes it a very different thing from the blanket link ban being 
pushed.  There are plenty of sites out there that are probably not 
very good sources for most (or all) things... somebody has recently 
cited The Register in that regard.  However, those sites don't have a 
whole clique out to vigorously suppress all reference to them, even 
on talk pages.

-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/