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

[John Lee]

On 10/18/07, RLS <evendell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.


I and some others (Steve Summit most notably, I believe) have pointed this
out before. We've been ignored resoundingly.

Johnleemk