[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

Ken Arromdee wrote 

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I see you haven't been following the controversy. 

Oooh, a low blow. I rather thought the ArbCom case was the rational person's version of the 'controversy'. You know, 40 or 50 points made in public, trying to get to grips with the issues. That I have been following.

>It's about links to attack
> *sites*, not links to specific pages that have attacks on them.  The idea is
> that if a site is an attack site, *any link to that site at all* regardless
> of whether the specific page linked to contains anything bad, is verboten.
> 
> So yes, under the proposal, the scenario could happen.

Well, as you might pick up eventually, I have been campaigning quite hard on the idea that "attack site" is a term designed to stop people thinking of what is actually going on.

Charles

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