[WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on

[William Pietri]

Slim Virgin wrote:
>> To assume that I support linking to "attack sites" from an illogical
>> loophole in my wording seems odd to me. [...]
>>     
> There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to
> a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership
> of the site. And no one has given a single example of where one of
> these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather
> than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.
>   

I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here, 
despite a lot of head-scratching.

SV, I understand you to be saying that you don't support an absolute ban 
on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, keeping in 
mind that any link to a site that is sufficiently filled with personal 
attacks is probably a net negative.

I understand Gracenotes to be saying that he also doesn't support an 
absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, 
based on the context of the post and the content of the link.


If I were to make either one of those a policy that I tried to enforce 
myself, I am having trouble imagining what I'd do differently between 
the two. Could somebody clear this up for me?

Thanks,

William