[WikiEN-l] JzG's banning Private Musings regarding BADSITES debate

[Delirium]

Fred Bauder wrote:
> He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure it is
> valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
>   

We're not; we're linking to *a notable source* that may have also 
published defamatory information. The _New York Times_ has also 
published defamatory information, some of which may be retrieved through 
its online archives, but we still link to nytimes.com. Heck we link to 
stormfront.org, which has even more obviously published defamatory 
information and exists mainly to publish racial attacks---but is 
nonetheless still notable.

IMO, when it comes to notable sources, when or if they should remove 
information becomes their problem, not ours. If an article should be 
removed from a NY Times archive, or a well-known professor's blog, 
that's a matter to take up with them, not with us. This is a quite 
different case from a site that *isn't* notable, and whose entire 
purpose is to publish defamatory information, and for which there is no 
reason to link to in the first place.

-Mark