[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[George Herbert]

On 10/15/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/10/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> > > The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
>
> > Yes, but if it comes down to one or the other ... then what?
>
>
> And let me say that I consider removing the michaelmoore.com link from
> [[Michael Moore]] to obviously constitute damage to the encyclopedia,
> and if the community comes up with a rule that makes that a good idea
> then the community is *wrong* and the rule needs removal. That's NPA
> vs NPOV, i.e. the BADSITES arbitration.

Right.  Damaging the encyclopedia incrementally as retribution for a
percieved or actual attack seems unwise.

In the case where someone outright attacks Wikipedia in an obvious
manner, perhaps we should have some cases for community self defense
allowed.  But...

We've removed links from three categories of sites that jump to mind.
They are exemplified by "Wikipedia Review" type links (site is only
there to attack us), "Making Light" type links (site is a blog, but
well respected, and only tangentally was involved in an attack on a
Wikipedian), and "Michael Moore" type links (site is
big/credible/respected if ideological, and was clearly engaged in an
attack on a Wikipedian).

The latter two categories of link removals were and remain pretty controversial.

Maybe the policy should just be "Don't Remove Any Article Topically
Appropriate Link", failing a consensus determination that a site is in
the first category clearly (or Arbcom decision if it's borderline).


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com