[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com>:

> On 16/10/2007, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia
>> > coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever
>> > occurred by the presence of such links.
>>
>> In the case of WR, I think that there's a case to be made.
>
> "If you want to take Vienna, take Vienna". If you want to block
> linking to Wikipedia Review, then block linking *to Wikipedia Review*.
>
> There are many people violently against the "attack sites removal"
> concept who would tolerate "site A and B are irredeemably and
> inherently useless for reasons X Y and Z, don't link there". I still
> haven't seen a good reason we can't have an (Arbcom-named?) blacklist,
> kept as small and undisputable as possible...
>


I for one would be worried about the ArbCom then making what amount to content
decisions, but I think that leaving that in the hands of the ArbCom 
would solve
many of the problems associated with BADSITES. The other side to this 
is that we
are already giving the ArbCom more and more authority and we've had at 
least two
recent threads here about how the ArbCom is overworked. That doesn't go well
together. But yes, leaving it in the hands of the ArbCom would solve many of
the problems.