[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

Links to a site, and references to a site, are the oxygen of the internet. We just don't help.

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs at eskimo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:52 PM
>To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>We should, yes, "guard our editors and protect them from harm",
>or however the saying goes. But at the same time, of course, we
>have to protect the *project* from harm. And a wrong decision
>here could really harm the project (not to mention that divisive
>debates like these are quite harmful, too).
>
>Protecting editors from harm must surely acknowledge the
>existence of off-wiki attacks. WP:NPA should certainly disallow
>links which serve to attack, just as it prohibits other, on-wiki
>attacks.
>
>However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt to enact blanket
>bans on all links to "attack sites", as the notorious BADSITES
>policy allegedly attempted to do. It's possible to justify such
>an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine, but
>a ban goes too far. It harms the project, and does *not* help the
>injured editor.
>
>I believe there are three underlying motivations for enacting
>absolute bans:
>
>1. We must not condone the activities of the attack sites.
>
>2. We must punish the attack sites.
>
>3. We must shield injured editors from being reminded of the
> existence of the attack sites.
>
>It's a bitter pill to swallow, but numbers 1 and 2 hold no water.
>The simple, sad fact is that THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE
>AN ATTACK SITE GO AWAY. They exist whether we link to them or
>not. They exist whether we talk about them or not. There's no
>way we can punish them. And linking to them does *not* condone
>them; that's not the way hyperlinks work.
>
>And then there's #3. I'll be accused of being a victim-blamer
>here, I'm sure, but fear of being called a victim-blamer is how
>we let ourselves get boxed into extreme, untenable positions,
>so I'll persevere.
>
>Guarding our editors and protecting them from harm does not
>mean that an aggrieved editor gets to make absurd demands for
>protection or redress and have them followed without question.
>In particular: if an injured editor declares that any reminder
>of an attack constitutes a continuation of the attack, or makes
>whatever declaration it is that somehow induces the rest of us
>to enact blanket bans, we must politely, sensitively, but firmly
>let the injured editor know that we've done as much as we can,
>that the attack site continues to exist regardless of whether we
>mention its name or not, and that the injured editor needs to work
>through whatever remaining healing issues they have and move on.
>
>We mustn't twist the project into some misshapen repudiation of
>its former self just because some numnutz at an attack site did
>something unspeakable. You may not like acknowledging the
>existence of the numnutz and the attack site, but I really,
>really hate giving them the power to corrupt our project, or
>worse, actively assisting and *enabling* them (by launching
>into misguided knee-jerk reactions) in corrupting our project.
>So, please, let's not.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>