On 13 Jul 2007 at 16:46, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
That's no quite true, though. What's actually going on here is a lot of sleight of hand and goalpost-moving in order to try to pretend that links to WR might, in some places, be OK.
Who's doing sleight of hand and goalpost-moving here? I'd say it's the side that starts with the premise that linking to that site is wrong in all cases, and then keeps coming up with an endless array of "creative" arguments (which might even contradict one another) to try to justify this.
My side starts from the premise that we should treat one another as responsible adults, and not need to hide any information from one another, even if some of this information is distasteful.
Free speech can be messy, obnoxious, annoying, and just plain nuts... but that hasn't stopped it from being adopted as a core value everywhere from the U.S. constitution to the U.N. declaration of human rights to the part of WP:NOT that says Wikipedia is not censored.
There are so many reasons that links to WR are utterly inappropriate that it is a constant source of mystery to me why we are still having a debate about them.
There are so many reasons that link bans are utterly inappropriate that it is a constant source of mystery to me why we are still having a debate about them.