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

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee at rahul.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 09:19 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
>
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, John Lee wrote:
>> > >If WR links were only deleted for not being reliable sources, we wouldn't
>> > >be *having* this fuss. Most of the questionable deletions of WR and
>> > similar
>> > >links are under circumstances where reliable sources are irrelevant--talk
>> > >pages, Wikipedia signpost, etc.
>> > Why post a link to a site which engages in harassment and outing, if
>> > it's not even a reliable source? In what way is that not dickish?
>> Because different people have different interpretations of the phrase
>> "reliable source". It is not dickery to disagree on what constitutes a
>> reliable source; it is a content dispute. How the dispute is resolved, of
>> course, may result in dickery from one or both sides.
>
>In this case, a better answer is "because reliable sources don't always
>matter". Non-reliable sources get linked in talk pages all the time. We
>don't delete them.

True, but most unreliable sources do not also contain material which abuses our editors and administrators. Protecting productive editors and administrators from harassment both on and off the wiki takes priority over keeping links to attack sites active.

Fred