[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Slim Virgin]

On 5/30/07, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> And here is the crux of the issue - jayjg is talking about using these
> so-called attack sites  as reliable sources and external links.  Slim Virgin
> is talking about them being inherent personal attacks.

I'm saying three things (1) there is never a good reason to link to
one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link
to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the
particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't,
as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that
seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and
defamation.

All the opposing arguments I've seen so far boil down to
wikilawyering, along the lines of "But we can't have that rule because
one day the New York Times might publish a threat to stalk and harass
a Wikipedian, and then we could never again use the New York Times as
a source!!" or "But what if there's an ArbCom case about these sites,
and what if no one could understand the evidence without seeing actual
live links, and what if all the ArbCom members lost access to their
e-mail accounts for the entirety of that case!!!"