[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Delirium]

jayjg wrote:

>On 5/30/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their
>>stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number
>>of trips to jail.  In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue,
>>and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site?
>>There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes
>>newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and
>>outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself
>>in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site
>>itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a
>>Wikipedia articles.
>>
>>In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed
>>in the Wikipedia article?
>>    
>>
>
>If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories
>about it, not WR itself.
>  
>
We wouldn't cite it, but we'd of course link to it.  It would be 
ludicrous to have an article about a website and nowhere in the article 
mention the website's URL. Even the mainstream news doesn't do that sort 
of thing anymore---back in the late 90s they'd infuriatingly write about 
controversial websites without providing links, but these days they 
almost invariably do, even if sometimes they include a disclaimer like 
"WARNING: LINK MAY HAVE NAZIS AT THE OTHER END".

-Mark