[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Gallagher Mark George]

G'day SV,

> On 5/28/07, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would you support the inclusion of a sentence in NPA indicating 
> that links
> > to content that meets the definition of personal attacks will be 
> treated in
> > the same way as a direct personal attack?
> 
> As I said earlier, the problem with the worst of the sites is that
> practically every link will lead to a page containing a serious
> personal attack, even if that's not the comment being linked to. It's
> the site we want to prevent links to, not just particular pages.

It's reasonable to say that there are valid reasons for wanting to link to
many websites that contain personal attacks.  It could be as part of an
academic (for want of a better word) discussion --- "this is what the kids
are saying about us now, what can we do about it?"  It could be that 
someone on Wikipedia Review turned out to be smarter than expected 
and has genuinely proposed a Really Good Idea for improving Wikipedia.  It 
could be that ... well, that's all I can think of this morning, but it's enough ... 
and I'm sure there's more.

We need to take into account the intent of the linker and the purpose of the
link.  If I link to Wikipedia Review as a "subtle" way of saying, "Take that,
SlimVirgin!", then I am being a Dick and should be treated as one who has
made a personal attack.  If I link to Wikipedia Review because Blu Ardvaark
has, against all the odds, posted something worth reading, and I want to 
encourage on-wiki discussion of his idea, this should not be prevented.

> The  other problem with your proposal is if we equate on- and off-wiki
> attacks, it would mean we could ban people for off-wiki attacks,
> something the community has not previously supported. Similarly, the
> systematic removal of on-wiki attacks is not fully supported.

Erm, not exactly.  If David Gerard were to say on Wikipedia Review, "I
think Jimbo Wales is a big poopy stinkhead" (something he's been known
to do, I hear), then I could not be blocked for it (and neither could David)
for making on-wiki personal attacks.  If, however, I were to post a link to
that page, and say, "David Gerard is bang-on in his assessment of
Jimbo Wales", then - hey presto!  Personal attack.  If I choose to link to
an off-wiki personal attack, I am bringing that attack into the realm of Wikipedia.

You have a point about removing on-wiki attacks.

> What we are talking about are the sites, not particular attacks.

We are unlikely to hurt sites like Wikipedia Review simply by snubbing them.
Other attack sites, like Daniel Brandt's abhorrent attempt to "out" admins, 
will likely only go away by convincing him to give it up --- perhaps through 
legal action --- because, whether it's popular or not, he's got a personal stake
in keeping it there (that's a nicer way of calling him a loony).

The only thing to be gained from banning links altogether is to make us feel a
bit better about ourselves, Bravely Combating the Nasty People on the Internet.
Now, there's a lot to be said about making us feel better about ourselves
(particularly those of us who have been targetted by attack sites), but I don't
agree that it is sufficient reason to ban all reference to an attack site.

Let's stop the people who are using the attack sites maliciously on-wiki
(e.g. advertising Brandt's website and saying "help him expose the admins
you hate!"), but let's do it with a bit more finesse than "never link to a bad site."


Cheers,

-- 
[[User:MarkGallagher]]