[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"James Farrar" wrote

> On 12/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> 
> > We are always subjective
> 
> And that's a problem, since it leads to the impression being given
> that the determining factor on what is deemed to be an "attack site"
> is "I don't like it".

An ancient problem, in WP terms, is the claim that if there is no definition, there can be no policy involving a term. The reason I dislike "attack site" as a term is not that there can't be a watertight definition. We operate just fine with an idea of "harassment" that isn't defined. The difference between those terms is that speaking about harassment gives the correct focus (of onsite activity by someone who can be held responsible, in a space provided by Wikipedia to forward its mission).

We could perfectly well operate a "Links for Deletion" process, with the  "attack" quality determined operationally. We don't do this. It would dignify the worst cases with a debate; and there still would be the wrong kind of assumptions about the intention of the author of the page linked to being more of an issue than why on earth Wikipedia should be linking to the page.

Charles

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