On 5/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
As others have said, it's not as a source in an article that anybody has been or intends on using that site (except perhaps for a future article on the site itself, if it should become sufficiently notable, or maybe on [[Criticisms of Wikipedia]] -- the sole thing that it would ever be a source for would be about itself and the views espoused by its participants).
Dan, would you be okay with this scenario? I today create a website that outs you, says where you live, and accuses you of being a pedophile, with some alleged examples. I then start a discussion about it on various project pages, and every time I mention it, I link to it. I'm careful not to link to the actual page that gives your details, so I'm not linking to a personal attack. I'm just linking to the main page, and I link here and I link there, I link everywhere, in an attempt to increase my readership.
Would you be okay with that?
Let's take it a bit further. Let's suppose I'm a reporter and I write an article about my experiment for a reliable source, and let's also suppose it's a very notable newspaper, but not a good one, and it lets me name the website in the article. I don't name you, but I also don't admit that I made up the pedophile allegation. I just present the creation of the website as an experiment; veracity of contents to be left to the reader.
Should someone then be able to create a Wikipedia article about my site, and link to it in that article so that it ends up in a prominent place in Google?
See, I'm pretty sure if that happened, you'd be howling, and rightly so.
Then try to imagine how you'd vote in an RfA for someone who called my website a "mixed bag," and who didn't want a ban on linking to it.