[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[Durova]

Durova 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.

You're saying that the primary purpose is to reduce the traffic going to
the sites, and whether it discourages them from intimidating editors is
_secondary_?
******
Please don't put words into my mouth.  That's not what I'm saying at all.

How can you justify making it Wikipedia's goal to manipulate other
websites' traffic? We've been trying to stop SEO people from doing that
since forever.
******
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

> NPOV *is* harmed when good editors decide "this isn't worth it"
> and leave the project.

Only indirectly in that with fewer good editors edits to correct
existing POVness aren't made as frequently. We can't go down the path of
calling anything that makes editors want to leave Wikipedia an "NPOV
violation", that way lies a lot of ridiculous scenarios.

*******
Are you suggesting that bypassing normal dispute resolution and singling out
individual editors for ridicule is a legitimate and healthy way to build an
encyclopedia?  I must disagree.

> Wikipedia has a legitimate interest in ensuring that
> all points of view are represented among its contributors.

What about the points of view represented by the so-called "attack
sites"? Sometimes there are legitimate concerns to be had among the
rantings and whatnot.

*******
There's a *baby with the bathwater* effect that the participants in all such
sites should bear in mind.  I am not completely opposed to a site like
*Wikipedia
Review*.  Sometimes the dialog there impresses me and in at least one
instance I have a barnstar waiting for a *WR* contributor, if he decides to
disclose a matter openly.  What detracts enormously from their credibility
as a critical site is how much they also serve as a forum for potshots and
sour grapes.  And what's really sad is there are probably some people whose
bans would have been lifted by now if they hadn't gone there.

-Durova