[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit
> > Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific
> > circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated
> > in very short list.
>
>
> Indeed, there are at best 5-7 total 'attack sites'. So few, that they could,
> in fact, be enumerated in very short list.

5-7 sites you are aware of, today. There are thousands of these things
out there, and more all the time.

>
> Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the
> *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well, the
> community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get to
> decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or game
> their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)

I'm not talking about BADSITES, which was a straw man policy. I'm
exploring the claim that it would benefit Wikipedia to link to WR or
sites very much like it.