[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[John Lee]

On 10/20/07, Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The purpose is that it reduces incoming traffic from one of the most
> powerful sources of link traffic on the Internet.  If that discourages
> people from using their sites to intimidate particular editors, then so
> much
> the better.  NPOV *is* harmed when good editors decide "this isn't worth
> it"
> and leave the project.  Wikipedia has a legitimate interest in ensuring
> that
> all points of view are represented among its contributors.


1. What hard evidence is there that this defuses criticism and/or harassment
of us and our editors?
2. Are you seriously arguing that excluding our readers from certain points
of view hosted off-site, by refusing to link to notable and/or reliable (by
our own guidelines) websites, is a lesser harm to NPOV than losing a handful
of editors who can easily be replaced? (Sad, I know, but true - I have never
met a single Wikipedian who was irreplaceable.)
3. And is there any hard evidence that harassed Wikipedians will quit if,
for good purposes (e.g. evidence in arbcom case, discussion in ANI, a source
for a controversial POV) we link to a reliable/notable website which
harasses them, or are we just taking their word at face value? AGF and all
that, but economists have shown that what people say and what people do are
not always congruent; what I think I will do and what I actually do are not
necessarily the same.

Johnleemk