[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Blu Aardvark]

Slim Virgin wrote:
> People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are
> exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common
> sense has to be applied, as always.
>   

People who want to go on a rampage against links to "dedicated attack 
sites"  are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts 
as well. Now, true, there may be some trolls and nutters in the mix, but 
the vast majority of people opposing an absolutist policy not because 
they want to link to the sites, but rather because they recognize that 
there are occasions where a link to an alleged "attack site" may be 
useful in an encyclopedic context, or during relevant on-wiki 
discussions. If common sense has to be applied, why is it that so few 
are willing to do so?

"Dedicated attack sites" is also a misnomer, as no site truly fit this 
description. Wikipedia Review is dedicated to critique of Wikipedia, 
although I'll admit it often falls short. It isn't dedicated to 
harassing and outing Wikipedia editors (this does, however, happen, and 
I won't deny it.) Encyclopedia Dramatica is a bit closer to the 
description, as it is dedicated to drama, and the producing of it, but 
nonetheless it is not a "dedicated attack site" either. Nor is Brandt's 
site, or wikitruth, or any other site which editors are on a rampage 
against.