[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[FT2]

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Will Beback
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
> 
> joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> You can't say "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral
encyclopedia" 
>> but onlyhave that be relevant when you want it to, and not when you want
to remove
>> the link. Either NPOV is what we're striving for or it isn't. But we
don't only
>> strive for NPOV when it is the convenient part of Will Beback's argument.
>
> 
> If Wikipedia becomes known as a volunteer job that leads to off-site 
> harassment that the community will do nothing to stop then that might 
> tend to reduce the appeal of editing too.
> 
> I again dispute that removing poor sources harms NPOV.
> 
> Will
>


There is a (?unrecognized?) blurring of poor quality source vs. undesirable
source, here, that's part of the reason this thread is so messy.
Distinguishing the two will help a lot.


A * poor quality * source is one that makes statements that are unlikely to
be reliable (or where there is no clear case they are reliable), and hence
cannot meet [[WP:RS]]. Self publication, blogs, and the like, are
archetypical "poor quality sources". 

(By contrast in simple terms, a good quality source would be one that is
reliable, or does credibly testify to certain matters or their genuine
standing.)

An * undesirable * source is one that we do not wish to promote, link to, or
encourage, usually because it actively is engaged in harming us, or an
editor, or contains text which pointedly attacks or harasses members of the
community, etc. (Be aware the decision to "not wish to promote or link" is
inherently non neutral - it always serves an agenda and perspective of one
side.)


Now... there is usually no problem with poor quality sources. We have no use
for them so we never have to link to them. Also, so long as an undesirable
sources is also a poor quality source, we have no problem or conflict
either. Same reason, there is no good reason to link to such a source. The
concern comes, what happens when a site hosts both good quality material,
and * also * undesirable material. That is the heart of this issue, and this
precision is needed to examine it.


In some cases we can replace the source with another, so we don't have an
issue. This would usually be the preferred answer anyway. So ultimately,
there are precisely 2 cases left to consider:

1/ The entire site is basically an "undesirable source", and really, the
entire site, or its aim, is undesirable to link to. But for some matters, or
in some articles, it is also a good quality or valuable source, and has
especial reference value in those limited areas.

2/ The site has one (or a limited few) pages which are "undesirable", but
the rest of its pages, or the aim of the site in general, is not really a
problem per se. But for some matters in some articles it is also a good
quality or valuable source, and has especial reference value in those
limited areas.


These are the specific two cases we need a decision on -- on the basis "if
this situation did exist for some site, how would we handle it?"

I think looking at it this way is far more likely to be more constructive,
and lead to a more helpful analysis, than just arguing the question, is it
an "attack site", whatever that may mean.


FT2.