[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham at gmail.com> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> > No, the litmus test should be "does this link benefit Wikipedia in any
> > way".. And the answer, as it turns out, is "almost never".
> >
>
> This is equally fair. Indeed, it's really a different wording of the
> same concept. If the link benefits Wikipedia in any way, it's pretty
> likely that removing it will stir up drama. And vice verse,

Well, except for the fact all the trolls etc. that cry "censorship"
the second you delete something that is *not* benefiting Wikipedia.

> > They always were rare.
> >
> Well, I have to grant that this is fairly legitimate. Despite my best
> efforts when I was an admin on that forum, it was next to impossible to
> keep a lid on things, and things have only gone downhill since.

Actually, it's not very hard to keep a forum civil. Set up proper
rules, delete posts that contravene them, and ban repeat offenders.

> Nonetheless, there are a number of occasions where there are reasoned
> discussions that don't involve personal attacks

It's like panning a thousand tons of ore by hand to find one speck of gold.

> > Aside from providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.
>
> Harassment and stalking, no. That isn't cheered on in the slightest, and
> users who have been found to have engaged in it have been removed from
> the forum in the past.

Hmm, hypothetically speaking, if someone started trying to get in
touch with what he believed were past work colleagues, boyfriends,
family of boyfriends, etc. of a Wikipedia editor, would he be banned
for harassment and stalking, or would he be lauded as perhaps the most
respected member of the forum?

> As for "defamation", I don't think that's really
> a valid concern regarding Wikipedia Review. There have been some nasty
> personal attacks, but nothing defamatory. Of course, other sites *do*
> engage in this practice.

Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were posting what it
thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting
that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other
similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters
have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when
it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."