[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/30/07, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon at prwatch.org> wrote:
> Jayjg wrote:
>
> > But Sheldon, Wikipedia has all sorts of rules about what kinds of
> > websites it allows links to, both in the actual articles themselves,
> > and even in the External links sections. The rationale behind these
> > rules is that linking to these sorts of websites does not assist the
> > purpose of  Wikipedia (which is to create an encyclopedia), and
> > arguably detracts from it or damages it.
>
> As several people here have previously pointed out, the rules you're
> describing above restrict people from linking to those sorts of
> websites in the article space, not on talk pages or things like
> Signpost.

And that's an important difference because...

> And none of those other rules are written as a backdoor way
> of banning links to a single specific site. As a general rule, it's a
> bad idea to write an across-the-board policy just to deal with a
> single situation.

Well, if you insist on proposing policies again and again, I suppose
I'll have to humor you. As I see it, the proponents of such a policy
would want it to apply to a class of sites, not a single specific
site, though obviously with the hope that the number of sites affected
would remain small (and please don't respond to this with a slippery
slope argument - I understand those logical fallacies quite well,
thank you). As for general rules, they generally apply, but, of
course, not always.

> > I haven't heard you
> > complaining about those rules, yet, oddly, you seem to have become
> > incensed over even the suggestion that WR is also the kind of site
> > that could not assist  Wikipedia in achieving its goals, and, in fact,
> > would arguably detract from Wikipedia or damage it. This apparent
> > double standard is troubling.
>
> I guess this passage is some sort of lame attempt to insinuate that
> I'm trying to carry water for WR.

I'm almost certain I just told you in my last e-mail to you that I was
not appointing you as my spokesman. Please rest assured that this is
still most emphatically the case, and please extend that to include
"and not my interpreter either".

> I don't give a fig about WR. I've
> only visited it a couple of times (always in response to the fuss
> that people keep making about it here), and I don't find it
> particularly interesting or worth reading.

That's a reasonable assessment.

> I get the general idea
> that it's a haven for grumbling Wikipedia-haters and that Daniel
> Brandt ought to take a chill pill,

True enough, though perhaps understated.

> but I haven't seen anything there
> reach the level of malignancy that some people here keep insisting is
> its very essence.

Perhaps the issue is that it is not your ox that has been gored.

> I'd ask you to give me a specific example, but you seem to have a
> policy against that. Instead, you've offered elaborate but vague
> hypothetical situations: "suppose someone calls you a pedophile on
> their website and then never actually links to the page where they
> call you a pedophile but instead slyly links to other pages while
> standing on their head and whistling Dixie...."

I think you've mistaken me for someone else.

> Since your
> hypothetical situations don't resemble anything I've ever actually
> seen on WR, I can't imagine how your hypothetical scenarios apply to
> this discussion.

Well, as you admit, you've only been there a couple of times. It's
quite a large cesspool, and you've only gotten your ankles dirty. Not
that I'm suggesting you dive in.

> I'd ask you to give a specific example rather than
> give hypotheticals, but that would require you to link to WR, and you
> can't under your own rules.

Whoops, there goes that strawman thing again. I haven't made any rules.

> That's one of the problems with
> censorship. It even hurts the censor.

Hysterical rhetoric does the same.