[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Blu Aardvark]

jayjg wrote:
> The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy
> like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that
> links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia. In this it succeeded
> admirably; now when people get the idea in their heads that something
> even remotely like BADSITES might possibly be proposed, or discussed,
> or even mentioned, they man the battlestations, full steam ahead, with
> the banner of "No censorship" flying from the main-mast, and cries of
> "if someone says something bad about you, you must have done something
> to deserve it" on their lips.
>   

This is an interesting argument, which, although repeated numerous 
times, has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The argument seems to 
go, "BADSITES didn't go the way we wanted it to, so it *must* have been 
launched by a disruptive user with the intent to invoke the opposite 
reaction." The problem is that nothing has been produced to support this 
claim. It appears to me to be an attempt to divert the discussion away 
from the core issue - namely, there isn't large community support for 
global bans to these "attack sites".

There is, however, large community support for the basic common sense 
policy of, "if it's harassment or a personal attack, delete it." I'm not 
advocating linking to Wikipedia Review, or to Encyclopedia Dramatica, or 
to any other alleged "attack site" unless to do so would be beneficial 
to the project. There are, despite claims to the contrary, rare 
occasions where such links are beneficial, and several examples have 
been given. There are, no doubt, other situations that may (or may not) 
arise that *could* potentially warrant links to such sites. Global bans, 
therefore, are harmful to the project.

> Now, regarding this new policy you are talking about, can you direct
> me to the proposal page, so I can see who is proposing it, and what
> exactly they are proposing? Thanks in advance.

I'm not talking about any new policy, or proposed policy. I'm referring 
solely to the general attitude regarding alleged "attack sites", which 
has been reiterated by you, SlimVirgin, and several others on this list, 
on the recent RFA hijack attempt, and other locations on Wikipedia. Or 
are you trying to tell me that you don't support an absolutist ban on 
alleged "attack sites"?