[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

-----Original Message-----
From: Wily D [mailto:wilydoppelganger at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 06:26 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

On 10/11/07, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 06:15 PM
> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
>
> [Incidentally, Fred, your quoting seems to have broken.]
>
> On 12/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Was not the whole point of WP:BADSITES simply to codify in /de jure/
> policy the /de facto/ policy that is already implemented, for certain
> value of badsite at least?
>
> Yes, my editor does not work right.
>
> I think the point of Bad Sites was to sucker us into taking an absurd position. And it worked. Not with everyone, but with a critical mass sufficient to cause plenty of trouble.
>
> Fred
>
Fred

The answer is then pretty simple - don't engage any drama.  When
somebody askes whether some random article on Slate.com invalidates
the whole place as a potential source, we say "No - that's not an
attack site" and we move on.  If they then use the link to harrass
"someone", well we block them for harrassing someone.  How they did it
becomes irrelevant.  If they don't, then everybody goes about the
business with no harm done.  Even if their motives are impure, but
simply saying "No" and then dropping it, the issue ends in the
cleanest way.

Cheers,
WilyD

_______________________________________________

Now you're talking.

Fred