[WikiEN-l] Query for all harassment-related proposals: How are you different from BADSITES?

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting RLS <evendell at gmail.com>:

> On 10/18/07, Will Beback <will.beback.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The blogger abused her power to harass Wikipedia editors. Should her
>> self-published website have been removed as a result, or should she have
>> been "rewarded" by adding more links to it?
>
> I was trying really hard to avoid these threads because I find the
> whole thing absurd; however, I suddenly feel the need to point out how
> absurd it actually is... (and my following comments are not directed
> at anyone in particular.)
>
> The answer to the quoted question is "Neither" -- and that's what most
> people seem to be missing in this whole "attack sites" debate.  It
> doesn't have to be one or the other!
>
> If the links to her self-published website were already in place on
> the article(s), logic dictates that there must have been a valid
> editorial purpose for the links, or they would already have been
> removed.  So, if that site was already seen as a reliable source (or
> at least a valid external link), it didn't suddenly cease to be
> reliable because content you object to was placed on other pages on
> the same site.  Hence, no reason for removal - unless the content of
> the *linked pages themselves* changed to be inappropriate,
> editorially, for the articles they were linked from.  But if that were
> the case, then they would need to be removed anyway under sound
> editorial judgment, regardless of any possible "harassment policy".
>
> By the same token, content that wasn't already linked didn't suddenly
> become more appealing to include as a source or EL as a result of the
> alleged abuse.  Hence, no reason for additional links.
>
> I fail to understand why there is such a brouhaha over all this attack
> sites crap, when it's already well covered under existing guidelines
> -- link to a source if it contains useful information, don't link to
> it if it doesn't.  The only *possible* confusion is if it has valid,
> useful information on the top of the page and "Wikipedia editor X is a
> fuckwit" at the bottom, which is hardly likely.
>
> Even for things like the whole michaelmoore.com situation, where the
> front page of the site, which is what was linked, changes to be
> unfriendly to a Wikipedian; it's not like removing the link does
> anything except convey a childish "nyah-nyah, we unlinked you"
> sentiment -- anybody with two brain cells to rub together can use
> Google to figure out that [[Michael Moore]] has a website at
> michaelmoore.com, whether or not we link to it.  And if you don't have
> two brain cells to rub together, you can have a guide from ChaCha.com
> find it for you.
>
> The whole debate conveys a sense of ... well, it's like the maturity
> level displayed by the average mid-adolescent LiveJournaler... "You
> said I'm fat, I'm un-friending you!" which means *nothing* to anyone,
> except the person who made the fat comment and the person who was
> insulted.  And then there are the people trying to push a more
> reasonable position on this and getting told that they must be in
> favor of harassing their fellow LiveJour... err, Wikipedians.  Good
> lord, people, grow up.
>
> In the rare case that there's more severe harassment that passes the
> level of "You're
> fat/stupid/ugly/draconian/right-wing/left-wing/Republican/Democrat/fascist/etc."
> and reaches actual threats of harm to another person, then that's
> well-covered by the Terms of Use of almost all US-based Internet
> providers -- report them to the ISP!  I guarantee you the material
> will be removed or the whole site shut down in short order, which will
> rectify the linking dilemma anyway.  Or, report them to law
> enforcement.  It will also be handled in short order.
>
>> > #2. And if so, how will your new proposed policy prevent this sort of
>> > abuse when the old policy was unable to.  That is-- if we all
>> > magically decided to enact your policy today, what's to stop you (or
>> > me, or anyone) from turning around tomorrow and having a complete
>> > repeat of this whole fiasco tomorrow.
>> >
>> Let me ask you - will your proposal prevent bloggers who edit Wikipedia
>> from using their blogs to settle on-Wiki disputes?
>
> Nothing will ever prevent that.  Don't waste the effort trying to
> formulate something aimed at stopping such.
>
> --Darkwind

Darkwind,

Very well said. That's close to what I've been trying to say but you said it
much more eloquently.