Quoting Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@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.