[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting fredbaud at waterwiki.info:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 04:41 PM
> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
>
> On 19/10/2007, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>> Jimmy Wales schreef:
>
>> > The only real question is where and how to draw the line, but we are
>> > actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline
>> > cases as an empirical matter.
>
>> They may be a minority, but most of the recent discussion was about
>> borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost
>> article, the Michael Moore site.
>> Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases
>> I've seen people arguing on both sides.
>
>
> And whether naming antisocialmedia.net in [[Judd Bagley]] should count
> as a personal attack on the people attacked by that site, even though
> the site itself is named openly in the NYT etc. as relevant. There was
> an arbitration case about this.
>
> The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
>
> I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to 
> edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any 
> excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light, 
> displaying petty bullying.
> Fred

Huh? How is it a false light? If his website has petty bullying up then he's
engaging in petty bullying. There's an inherent difficulty in saying that an
article would normally benefit from a link but we aren't going to put 
it there.
That's damaging to the encyclopedia due to an application of some peoples POV.
That's almost the definition of not being NPOV.