[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[Andrew Gray]

On 12/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 05:00 PM
> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
>
> On 11/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> > >> Right, and that is where "the idiot" should have to look for it. It is
> > >>inappropriate to trash our own users on our own site.
> >
> > >This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
> >
> > That is exactly what is in dispute.
>
> No, what is in dispute as what can be *defined* as "trashing our users
> on our own site". No-one seriously discussing this supports making
> vicious personal attacks against people, and it is both dishonest and
> insulting to imply they do.
>
> What people are trying to decide is
>
> a) how we can best react when other people do it, or when other people
> talk about people doing it, or when other people find themselves
> inextricably linked with people doing it... and,
>
> b) how far we stretch the definition of what it means to *make* such
> an attack; whether alluding to or linking to one made by a third party
> is considered making it oneself.
>
>> These are actually in dispute, and you don't get to redefine the terms
>> of the debate so anyone who disagrees, or has the temerity to argue
>> with a diktat, is trolling.

> Those who are engaging in this discussion in good faith are concerned
> with those questions. But those who advanced "Bad Sites" were
> certainly not. They were trying to confuse the issue.

But the people you are arguing with *right now* aren't those who
"advanced" this proposal. So why go for them, why imply that they're
arguing in favour of personal attacks?

(As for BADSITES, it was a proposal which, I confess, I find utterly
indistinguishable from the "real" attack-sites proposal... but then,
us observers shouldn't worry our pretty little heads over such
high-flown concepts. I know that one of them is a vile
counterrevolutionary slander and the other one is True and Honest, but
damned if I can tell the difference)

Every one of these slippery vague insinuatory messages you send is
pissing off people who fundamentally agree with your basic principles,
you know, and just serves to make productive discussion on the subject
immeasurably harder. You're just making the situation worse in the
long run with this sort of behaviour, and the project is not going to
be the better for it.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk