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

[Ray Saintonge]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:56:12 +0100, "James Farrar" 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. 
>
Not every thoughtful person arrives at the same view as you.

>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.  
>
Is Wikilayering over how we /must not/ be able to link any better.  When 
you cite three policy statements to support your position, that too can 
be seen as wikilawyering.

>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.  
>
If Arbcom starts to enforce rules that aren't there it's usurping the 
role of the public to making rules.  Holding firm on that position can 
only cast the Arbcom into disrepute.

>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.
>
There's that weasel word, "obvious" again.  It's a rhetorical technique 
to win by dininishing the intelligence of your opponents.

>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.
>
That sounds very dramatic.  The obstinacy of those supporting likely 
does more to promote these sites than any quietly placed links.

Ec