-----Original Message----- From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman@spamcop.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 03:14 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder"clarifies"on attack site link policy
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:04:04 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, when you said "Don't do it", I thought it referred to the last action you mentioned - "Linking to harassment sites". I suppose it would have been clearer if you said "Linking to harassment sites with the intent of harassing someone", but then the tautology would have become very obvious, wouldn't it?
No, "don't do it" in the sense of don't do it. Linking to harassment sites is forgivable the first time, because poeple might not know, but it rapidly becomes unacceptable if pressed, because even if *they* don't see it as harassing, *others* (specifically those harassed by the site) may well do. I can be perceived as harassment without being intended as such.
What I'm trying to say is, the proponents of a blanket ban on linking to attack sites, without regard for the intentions of those linking to said sites (and/or assuming that those who link to such a site must obviously be acting in bad faith) are not going to get very far, because as even you acknowledge, this sort of blanket ban is ridiculous.
In theory, yes. In practice I am still waiting for an example which is not obviously unacceptale. I am also pointing out that the fact of ED being the only site named in that ArbCom case absolutely does not mean it's the only site covered, per the prinicples I quoted above. Some people seem to think only ED is covered, I would say they are wrong.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
My position has evolved quite a bit during this discussion. Theoretical discussion about how a ban on links to attack sites is a bad idea, futile, counterproductive, etc. is fine. Not welcome, but fine.
What is not acceptable is a determined effort, in the face of warnings, to repeatedly link to an attack site. Whatever the excuse given.
We have a responsibility to protect our productive editors and administrators from harassment.
Fred