[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[FT2]

I should add to my comment below, that the issue is more, when a link is
discretionary. For example, "external links" sections are intended to help
people. Would the average person expect a link to (for example)
michaelmoore.com under Michael Moore's article? Would it be helpful to them?
What if the first thing they would see on visiting there would be a
denigration or attack on Wikipedia (or its editor/s)? What if they might
wander round and find such a page elsewhere on that site?

I think that puts it in perspective in a way. It is a tough one, I'll grant
that..... 


FT2.




> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of David Gerard
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
> 
> On 20/10/2007, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>> Durova wrote:
>>
>>It cements the notion that banning the link is punitive, not protective.
> 
> We do it for shock sites, and antisocialmedia.net is odious enough to
> deserve not being linked.
>


Note that "X website is odious enough to deserve not to be linked" is quite
closely related conceptually to the following statements:

"X person is odious and hence should not be mentioned."
"X belief is odious and hence should not be mentioned."
"X lifestyle is odious and hence should not be mentioned."
"X other viewpoint is odious and hence should not be mentioned."

NPOV disavows * all * of these... and anything like them, as valid rationale
for article edits.


Whatever is done in non-article space, in _article space_ neutrality
overrides self interest on the part of _all_ participants in _any_
discussion. There are several ways around this but ultimately:

1 -- If a fact is not notable in an article, it can be ignored.

2 -- If a fact is notable, but no reliable sources that attest to its
standing as a fact can be found, then it can be removed whether factual or
not, for want of reliable sourcing.

3 -- If a fact is notable and reliable sources exist, then it can usually be
sourced from a reliable source that is more desirable than a site burdened
with controversy and hostility.

4 -- If a fact is notable and the only reliable sources accessible happen to
be on a site that is generally undesirable, then there are only 2 choices
remaining -- engage non-neutrality and disregard a notable fact in mainspace
because of a dislike towards its source on the part of (one or more)
editors, or, do not disregard and mention it anyway.

5 -- Established perspective: NPOV is non-negotiable in article space.

6 -- Established perspective: Editors who cannot handle NPOV on a given
article or topic, should avoid editing that article. This includes any
editors, however experienced, not just newcomers.


FT2.