[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[K P]

On 10/15/07, Will Beback <will.beback.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Will Beback wrote:
> > Delirium wrote:
> >> Will Beback wrote:
> >>
> >>> The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not
> >>> full
> >>> of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not
> >>> require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any
> >>> external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't
> >>> part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>   Sure they are. The technical matter of a link is merely a convenience to
> >> our users, true, but the mention in the article body that Michael Moore
> >> runs a popular website is encyclopedic content. And furthermore posts on
> >> the website of a popular person are reliable sources for that person's
> >> view, and frequently used as such in academic writing (articles on
> >> michaelmoore.com are cited in hundreds of journal articles and
> >> academic-press books). Having a separate self-referential standard for
> >> sources is bizarre: we should generally not have policies about sources
> >> that special-case them based on what they say about Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> -Mark
> >>
> This proposal isn't about criticism of Wikipedia or its editors. It is
> about active harassment of Wikipedia editors. Real live volunteers just
> like you and me.
>
> For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks
> are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address
> non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any
> other self-published website that actively engages in harassing
> Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves
> anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable
> would be minimal.
>
> There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a
> BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that
> readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to
> their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that
> charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't
> normally do those things for good reasons. Simply providing every
> possible iota of information isn't our purpose. We redact personal
> contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't
> include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia
> editors because we respect our editors.
>
> Will Beback.
> >

Except that Michael Moore uses his website to give readers or fans or
whomever more information about himself.  He doesn't publish his phone
number or address or hand it out at meetings that I know of.  His
publisher is available on his books, and his books should be listed in
the article with their pbulishers, so we do this already.    We're not
providing every iota of information and no one is even suggesting that
by publishing a link to his website we are also demanding to know how
much protein he has in his eyelashes.  Other sites all over the
Internet publish Moore's web address when they write about him.  But
not Wikipedia, because, well, because then we'd have to publish his
underwear schedule it seems.

KP