[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Gracenotes]

Hm. The only issue with putting the focus on the sites (rather than the
context of the links themselves) is that we'll still have to act against
links to random blog posts that make serious personal attacks
against Wikipedians, and this would not be covered by the central
idea of the policy.


On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, but that was my point. :)  As it is now, anything from MSNBC.comto
> > CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.govcould
> > theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any
> one
> > person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if
> > people don't support it...
> >
> That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument. For what it's worth,
> here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly
> publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported
> personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves
> explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation;
> personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of,
> threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of
> privacy, or violence."
>
> Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone reasonable would
> object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even
> link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only
> *suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution.
> Increasing the readership of websites that encourage people to stalk
> and harass Wikipedians, or that try to "out" them, or that publish
> defamation, is obviously a much dodgier thing to do than linking to a
> copyvio.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>