[WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
fredbaud at waterwiki.info
Tue Jul 10 09:38:51 UTC 2007
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman at spamcop.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 03:09 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:01:21 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk at gmail.com>
>>Look, it's very obvious to all of us on the list that WR isn't a reliable
>>source. What we're saying is that it isn't to others, and that threatening
>>them with blocking isn't any greater an idea than threatening someone who
>>cites Joe Bloggs' blog as a source with a block.
>Unless, of course, they continue to press the issue. If someone posts
>it and it's removed and we tell them why, fine. If they continue to
>re-insert it then a warning is entirely appropriate, just as a warning
>is appropriate if people keep inserting a blog as a source. We do
>this all the time.
People who fail to understand what constitutes a reliable source are not usually blocked. I can visualize an inexperienced or naive using finding interesting material on an attack site which seems to be usable as a reference, or at least interesting. The problem arises, as it does with other users who fail to appreciate what is an appropriate external link, with users who after explanations and warnings repeatedly reinsert inappropriate links.
As pointed out repeatedly, there are limited instances where a link is appropriate, for example as evidence of the nature of a site, or of a rave which turn out to have been well founded. Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
Bottom line, our main responsibility in this area is to support our productive users and administrators by taking reasonable steps to protect them from harassment either on the wiki or by external attack sites.
More information about the WikiEN-l