On 13/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:17:17 -0500, "Alec
Conroy"
<alecmconroy(a)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.