On 13/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:17:17 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Some people-- far too many, have come to view the encyclopedia as a way to minimize the influence of the banned, rather than view banning as a tool to protect the encyclopedia. In the infamous Attack Sites case, two of our own arbitors voted that "Not mentioning the Banned Attackers" was more important than "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia", and that mentions or links should be stricken from the encyclopedia, even at the cost to the project itself.
Who would those people be? Names, please. I've not come across anyone who thinks that not mentioning banned people is more important than the encyclopaedia. Of course, if you represent linking to a hate site as being crucial to the integrity of the project then it might *seem* as if that's the case, but most of us are, I hope, a good deal more pragmatic than that.
The case in question was mentioning antisocialmedia.net at all (not a link, but naming it) in [[Judd Bagley]]. It went to arbitration, as you may recall.
- d.