[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Andrew Gray]

[oops, sent just to Jay first time]

On 30/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > A link to whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if
> > one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an
> > attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have
> > seen, sadly, not improbable...
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would
> linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please
> give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article
> content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and
> [[WP:RS]].

I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its
ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to
link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole
Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by
someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through
with a bit of noise.

Oh, no, someone decides it's an attack site. Remove all links, start
threats for replacing them, vast amount of noise and fuss. ML is an
extreme case - it's *obviously* a legitimate source - but I do wonder
how many more cases of these would occur with a strongly worded "no
attack sites" policy. After all, it's been - what, a month since we
first threw this idea around as a general rule?

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk