[WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?
james.farrar at gmail.com
Sun Jul 29 21:29:16 UTC 2007
On 29/07/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/07/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29/07/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar at gmail.com]
> > > >Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 11:21 AM
> > > >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?
> > > >
> > > >On 29/07/07, Oleg Alexandrov <mathbot at hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >> As we know, Slashdot posted a story linking to a paranoic article
> > > >> revealing SlimVirgin's real name and claiming she is a secret
> > > >> agent. Bad and dumb on their part. That of course makes
> > > >> SlimVirgin feel distressed, creates a lot of damage, etc.
> > > >
> > > >And therefore, in order "to support productive editors and protect
> > > >them from harassment both on and off Wikipedia", it is necessary that
> > > >all links to Slashdot be expunged from Wikipedia immediately, right?
> > >
> > > No, we don't take such foolish suggestions seriously.
> > It's good to see a consistent policy being applied.
> so you complain when there is a 'blanket ban' on 'attack sites' and then
> complain when the ban on attack sites is used thoughtfully on a case by case
> basis ? make your mind up on which you prefer. unless you're seriously
> suggesting that we ban links to slashdot i think you should take the stupid
> baiting elsewhere.
I'd rather there wasn't an "attack sites" policy, but if there is one,
it needs to be applied consistently, rather than just against sites
that certain admins happen to dislike.
More information about the WikiEN-l