[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com:

> "David Gerard" wrote
>
>> On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
>> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or
>> > substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in 
>> this context
>> > refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their
>> > consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical
>> > violence.
>
>> Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that
>> caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack
>> site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources
>> (under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of
>> BADSITES-like policies).
>
> Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: 
> these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle, 
> then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy 
> is typical of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the 
> playground. In other works there is a pretty good reason to say 
> WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
>

So we can name sites in article space like antisocialmedia.net but can't have
the article link to them? Can someone explain to how this makes any sense at
all? Oh, yes that one saved click is really going to make it less harassing.
This is in many ways the worst possible combination. We are sacrificing the
integrity of article space for an at best marginal benefit.