On 30/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Indeed. Ken, that's what we've been arguing from the start. No links to purpose-built attack sites, the ones that do little else.
Isn't that limited really to just one website (that I know of, without naming names) unarguably, and two that people are pretty regularly arguing the point over?
It is limited to three sites; the trouble is that a zero tolerance policy still has the problems of a zero tolerance policy. There are some reasons why we might want to link to even those three sites. They may be rare reasons, but they are not nonexistent reasons. Removing the link from Wikipedia Signpost and removing the links from the attack sites discussion are bad ideas, and a zero tolerance policy leaves no room for such unusual cases.
Perhaps if we mandate {{spoiler}} tags around each mention ... ;-p
- d.