[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

 "Wily D" wrote

> Date: 2007/10/11 Thu PM 03:08:53 BST
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
> 
> On 10/11/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Wily D" wrote
> >
> > > A regular editor may well be legitimately concerned
> > > that linking to Slate will get them banned - and *even if* this
> > > particular question was asked disingenuously, somebody else is going
> > > to be wondering the same thing in all honesty.
> >
> > Let's get the scenario straight. Even if Slate were somehow classified as a site to which one should not link (not going to happen), and even if some editor links to Slate, it would take there being a very good reason not to link to the specific page, and then an obstinate defence of linking in the teeth of advice not to, before anything actionable in ArbCom terms has occurred. If some loose cannon of an admin decides they can "ban" someone independent of such a case, it is they who are more likely to end up in court, for abuse of admin powers.
> >
> > Any real fracas over linking in this general area ought to be sorted out by proper Wikipedian interactions. Everyone still needs to exercise good judgement, with respect to those interactions, just as much as in what to link to.
> >
> > Charles
> 
> Charles - I agree with all of this.  What is unreasonable is to expect
> every editor to be aware of it - *especially* when they're not allowed
> to ask.

I think we have to hold tight to the idea that admins have an obligation to explain. 

And "not allowed" begs the question. The relevant piece of policy about extlinks has "disputed" on it, AFAIK. One is certainly allowed to ask about what is disputed in a piece of disputed policy. This is different from a fairly hypothetical question about whether a small allusion on a site taints the whole site in the light of a proposed policy that failed to gain acceptance.

To tie these up: all our best policies have a single sensible point, and that point describes reasonable expectations on how people act. "Don't link to junk" is one such point, and we are still trying to formulate the version that includes more ("don't harass by external linking" and "we just ignore some sites that have, when it comes to down it, an editorial policy based on damaging our volunteers"). There is still a reasonably simple point in there.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam