FT2 wrote:
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 [...]
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.)
Thanks for breaking that down.
Although you don't mention them, I think we can also extend your model to article-space external links. There are poor-quality links, which are irrelevant, spammy, or otherwise not serving readers well. Then there are possibly undesirable links, like michaelmoore.com, which don't serve us well.
I think the question of external links in other spaces would yield to a similar approach, but it's not as directly analogous.
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.
Agreed.
Thanks,
William