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

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:

>> Quoting Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>>
>>>> Alec Conroy wrote:
>>>>> There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected,
>>>>> and that linking  to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is
>>>>> permissible in some circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> Setting aside the question of the block for a moment, I'm curious
>>>> about the incident that triggered the block.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand rightly, [[Robert Black (professor)]] is a respected
>>>> Scottish law prof who is from Lockerbie, who has taken a great
>>>> interest in the Lockerbie case, and was involved in setting up the
>>>> Lockerbie trials of the Libyan agents.
>>>>
>>>> In response to recent activity in the case, in early July he set up a
>>>> blog to discuss it. We briefly mentioned the blog and added a link to
>>>> it. That link stayed in place until a few days ago, when he gave a
>>>> one-sentence mention of the allegations that SV "systematically
>>>> altered"
>>>>  the Wikipedia Lockerbie articles, mentioning what some claim is her
>>>> true  name. He doesn't claim that they are true, just that they are
>>>> interesting.
>>>>
>>>> The link was removed within 24 hours by a newly created account
>>>> called "Privacyisall", which has only edited around this, and shows
>>>> enough instant facility with Wikipedia that the account could well be
>>>> a sock. The edit summary: "Remove blog which outs and attacks our
>>>> editors as per
>>>>  Arbcom ruling."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if I got that right, it seems to me that here we have another case
>>>> along the lines of Micheal Moore.
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Black is an intentionally public figure talking about a topic
>>>> on which he is a credentialed expert. He starts an official blog,
>>>> which seems relevant, so we mention it. We include a link, both
>>>> because statements in articles should be verifiable, and because if
>>>> somebody is interested enough to read about Robert Black, they could
>>>> well be interested in reading his blog.
>>>>
>>>> However, once Black mentions something we personally don't like, we
>>>> remove the link. He's not attacking anybody, the mention is clearly
>>>> pertinent to his field of interest, and the link on Wikipedia
>>>> couldn't possibly have been included as part of an attack. But still,
>>>> putting the
>>>>  link back is considered a serious enough offense that the account
>>>> involved is blocked, and there seems to be a fair bit of support for
>>>> the
>>>>  blocking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we can have this much drama, it sounds like we don't have enough
>>>> consensus yet. What can we do to create more?
>>>>
>>>> William
>>>>
>>>
>>> He has published defamatory information when he admits he's not sure
>>> it is valid. Why would we link to defamatory information?
>>
>> Huh? Do you mean Black has done so? Saying "X claims that Y" is now
>> "defamatory
>> information" that we can't link to even if it is a link we'd otherwise
>> have in article space? What if it weren't Black but the New York Times?
>> Or what if it were Black but the information was about an editor of say
>> the German Wikipedia or a non-Wikimedia project?
>>
>> Finally, I do hope you realize what this would look like to the general
>> public;
>> Wikipedia will censor any links that even mention the possibility that
>> another site outed a Wikipedian. Are we trying to look like something
>> out of Catch-22?
>
> What it is, is "fact laundering", see Wikipedia:Fact laundering
>
> Responsible media don't generally engage in it.
>
> Fred

I've your essay and frankly I don't see its relevance at all. First, 
responsible
media all the time say "According to X, Y", in fact we do that for 
controversial
statements all the time and that's what we're supposed to do. How this became
"fact laundering" is beyond me. And it isn't clear to me who you mean is "fact
laundering". Do you mean Black? Even if he is, and this neologism is somehow a
bad thing how is that relevant to whether or not we should link to his blog?
Are you saying we wouldn't link to his blog if he "fact laundered" these sorts
of statements about a non-Wikipedian? If there's a difference we're 
back to the
same problem.

Do you possibly mean someone else is fact laundering here? If so, who?