[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On 17 Oct 2007 at 5:29, 23:39:50 -0400 wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that agrees with my own philosophy.  On my own personal Web 
sites, I'm constantly linking to things I totally disagree with, just 
to give access to a wide range of views.  And a while back, when 
comic book artist/writer [[John Byrne]] was feuding with Wikipedia 
over his bio, I noted that his own Web forum had declared itself a 
"Wikipedia-free zone" and banned all links to Wikipedia, and I 
considered this to be giving Wikipedia a clear moral high ground 
there.  I'm distressed to see Wikipedia yielding this high ground 
where other critics' sites are concerned.


-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/