[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[David Gerard]

On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yeah, but that was my point. :)  As it is now, anything from MSNBC.com to
> > CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.gov could
> > theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any one
> > person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if
> > people don't support it...

> That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument.


nielsenhayden.com is as likely to be regarded as an "attack site" as
any of those. I mean, Will systematically removed all links to
nielsenhayden.com as an "attack site" in absolute good faith. He
believed the value of what he was doing - inarguably causing damage to
the encyclopedia in the process.

That's why BADSITES *or anything that looks, walks and quacks like it*
is unacceptable. It will be abused to damage the encyclopedia. By
people convinced they're doing the right thing.


- d.