On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:56:28 -0500, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Well, I don't know about that. My view on BADSITES
has changed at least. I
started out very much in favor of some variant of BADSITES, but as I watched
the arguments develop I became more and more convinced that BADSITES was a bad
idea both ideological and pragmatically
Yes, same here. These days I think that external links should be
removed in limited circumstances. Two that spring to mind:
* harassment
* commentary by banned users seeking to influence content in
defiance of their ban
There is one site I have a problem with now, which is the lockerbie
blog; the fatuous SlimVirgin conspiracy was deliberately planted
there, I think, in order to get it linked. I am not too happy about
that. But the matter of links in articles is one for "sound
editorial judgment", not absolutist positions of principle (which is
where the remaining argufiers on BADSITES are at).
Where I think Dan goes wrong is that he mistakes agnostics for
atheists. Most people I've talked to think that some links should
go, some are not that big a deal. I don't agree with Dan's stated
position that offsite harassment is no big deal.
They can argue for as long as they like, if someone links a WR
thread that harasses an editor then I will remove it, because even
Dan has said that is appropriate.
We do lack a mechanism for achieving closure on subjects where
incompatible ideologies clash. We manage this better in content
than we do in meat debate.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG