[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[Steve Summit]

Wikk Beback wrote:
> Spam links don't damage articles, at least not individually, nor do 
> blogs. Are you saying that a link to buying cars is worse than a link 
> urging people to call an editor at work to complain about his editing?

But the spam link is on Wikipedia, and is ours to delete.
The link urging people to call an editor at work is on some other
site, which we have no direct control over.  It exists whether we
do anything about it or not.  So the two are not really comparable.

When two groups A and B are locked in prolonged, internecine
argument, one great way of discovering which is the more reasonable
(and therefore probably more accurate in its portrayal of the
debate) is to check their respective websites.  If A's website,
down underneath its point-by-point repudiation of everything B
stands for, says something like, "but for an opposing viewpoint,
see http://www.B.org", and if B's website, on the other hand,
steadfastly refuses to acknowledge A's, it's a safe bet that A
has the moral high ground.

I would like Wikipedia to retain the moral high ground here.

I may disagree with everything Michael Moore says and stands for,
but I will defend pretty strongly not only his right to say so,
but also the right of our encyclopedia readers to evaluate it for
themselves.