On Tue, 29 May 2007 00:06:14 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
If we have to choose between protecting their privacy and writing an encyclopaedia, which should we opt for?
You note that this dichotomy has not yet been observed. I agree. In fact, it likely never will. In the event of an attack site becoming uncontroversially notable, we can quote its URL without liking if that helps soothe wounded pride, but the issue is not, I think, that of whether we should link attack sites in their own articles (since very few will ever have them), but whether we should allow them anywhere other than their own articles.
If BADSITES said no links other than a single link to the root in an article on the site itself, if that is considered by the community to justify an article, then I would probably have no problem with it and I suspect others may well agree.
The debate would, of course, then switch to whether the site is itself notable. Thus far, as far as I can recall, most of the really vociferous campaigners for articles on attack sites have been either militant inclusionists or trolls (or sometimes both). But that might just be faulty memory.
Guy (JzG)