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

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day John,

> On 7/4/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/2/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But as many of us have pointed out before, there's no reason a
>> looser-worded
>>> policy or one based on the existing NPA policy would not achieve
>>> the
>> same
>>> end.
>> What did you have in mind?
> 
> Steve Summit wrote:
> 
> "You claim that the blanket ban is acceptable because reasonable 
> people can decide to make exceptions if necessary.  But why go that
> route?  Why not say that links -- to any site, anywhere -- which
> serve as attacks, are attacks, and are banned under NPA? Why not let
> reasonable people realize that this is a sufficient policy, that will
> disallow all the troublesome links just as effectively as the blanket
> ban would?  What additional protective power is gained by proactively
> applying the blanket ban?"

For what it's worth, I'm with John and Steve S here, and I can't see 
what's wrong with their approach.

If someone links to WR maliciously, we deal with it as a personal attack 
... and get all the benefits we would get from I Can't Believe It's Not 
BADSITES[0] and similar products.  If someone finds one of those 
legitimate reasons to link to WR that Guy has been so scornful of, a 
links accordingly, we don't have a problem.

Why is this worse than banning all links to certain sites, exactly?  Why 
can't we just muddle along as Steve S advocates?



[0] In the timeless words of Monty Python, "You try anything like that
     around here, and we'll cut your face!"

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/