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