On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Gracenotes' RFA has been suspended by the 'crats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes There is no indication as to what this actually means for the RFA. Well done to the advocates of BADSITES, and I look forward to the thorough nobbling of RFA by this means by others who can gather up some agenda-pushers. I can't wait for the nationalists to get into this one.
David, as has been pointed out, the only people advocating BADSITES on this one were supporters, who were using it as a straw man to bash opposers. I didn't see any opposers referring to it.
They were reffering to the basic issue, however. Plus they were basically advocating the policy. ~~~~
No, they weren't, and they're rather tired of continually being strawmanned that way.
Er ... bollocks.
Q4 from SlimVirgin: "Hi GN, I seem to recall your posting something that implied you felt it was okay to link to attack sites, but I may be misremembering. Can you outline your position on that issue, please?"
Answer: reference to BADSITES. " A: Certainly. I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia.
I came to view the proposed WP:BADSITES as an extension of our policy on No Personal Attacks, as several others did. Personal attacks are restricted on Wikipedia, but not on other websites, where nonconstructive criticism has no consequences. (This can be compared to Wikipedia, where action can be taken upon personal attacks.) If posting a link to an attack site is intended, in any way, to be a personal attack in itself, then Wikipedians may wish to rephrase or remove their comments. If the issue brought up by the attack site is valid, surely Wikipedians can discuss it on-wiki.
In the discussion at WT:BADSITES, I thought it unhelpful for editors to either add or remove links merely to make a point; I was also frustrated by the enforcing of a proposed policy for cases without a clear personal attack.
To delineate, and to address some of the concerns in your question, I oppose removing all links to all such sites in all contexts, especially if such removals interfere with the good faith development of Wikipedia (if rules make you nervous or depressed...) Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith. Both adding and removing links should be justified by logic, and not by enforcement merely for the sake of enforcement (something I see way too much in real life). Temperance, rather than prohibition, is the best route. (There has not been an amendment enforcing morality since the 18th, and for good reason.)
To conclude, it is an interesting fact that (to my knowledge) MeatballWiki has no articles on dealing with external sites of criticism. Wikis are meant to be their own self-sufficient world, taking care of their own problems, not meant to be in the real world. However, Wikipedia no longer has that option: the recognition of this is helpful in dealing with such sites. Now, if these comments seem without focus, it is because the issue has many, many facets. Hopefully I've explained my views on the facets you're interested in. GracenotesT ยง"
First in Oppose list from SlimVirgin: "Strong oppose. I have to oppose based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would ever have to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"
That is: Gracenotes referred to BADSITES, and SlimVirgin opposed because he failed to oppose all links in any circumstances.
- d.
Oppose: refers to being unhappy with answer to Q4.