[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Armed Blowfish]

On 19/09/2007, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Armed Blowfish wrote:
>> I have no idea how you think removing links to psychologically
>> damaging material which aren't reliable sources anyway hurts
>> the project...
>
> But, of course, we aren't talking about removing the odd link
> here and there.  We're talking about a policy which makes it
> normal to set up prior restraint against entire sites, to declare
> that no link to any page on those site may ever be made for any
> reason, without exception.

If the material in question - be it a privacy violation, defamation
or hurtful - is on the front page of the website or easily findable
from the front page, then this makes sense.  Linking to the
material is assisting in its dissemination, and may further the
harm done by it in two ways - increasing exposure of the
material and reminding the person hurt by it of said material.
These things are all-or-nothing.  Number of people who read
the material does matter.  How long it stays up also matters.

In a number of jurisdictions, pointing in the direction of or
repeating defamation has been considered defamation itself.
Refusal to take down the material does, in the UK at least, foil
any innocent dissemination defence.

This article gives some good pointers:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm

The author of that article, Don Burleson, co-authored the
book 'Web Stalkers: Protect yourself from Internet Criminals
& Psychopaths'.

True, it would be better for a representative to talk the
website into taking down the material altogether.  However,
note that some material, for example that which may hurt a
person's feelings but is otherwise legal and fine, may be
bad for inclusion in Wikipaedia, but not things Wikipaedia
can insist other websites to censor.  One person I talked to
suggested that it was alright to edit Wikipaedia and not
make off-wiki attacks, or to not edit Wikipaedia and make
off-wiki attacks (free speech and all), but that doing both
was poisonous.

Technology enables this sort of thing.  Things that would
help:
* Allow and encourage Tor.
* Hide the parts of Wikipaedia where signatures appear
   (basically, everything but the actual encyclopaedia)
   from Google.
* Provide an option for autoconfirmed users to hide their
   contributions history from non-admins.  (For an added
   twist, you could allow admins to do this only if they forfeit
   their ability to see the contributions histories of those who
   choose to be hidden.)  Since this would be optional, it
   would cause no GFDL problem.
* Blank, delete and oversight first, privately ask questions
   later.

Also, Wikipaedia itself could try not setting such a bad
example by ruthlessly attacking people....

> (And for good measure, some seem to want
> to make the list of so-banned sites secret.)

This reminds me of WebSENSE, a company which provides
blocking software.  In July 2002, WebSENSE started
providing daily porn links which they blocked but which
their competitors, SurfControl and SmartFilter, did not.
Anyone -- including students at schools using SurfControl or
SmartFilter - could view this list simply by agreeing that they
were over the age of 18.  SurfControl and SmartFilter did not
block WebSENSE's website.  They did, however, add the links
to their own blocking databases within about 24 hours.  After
5 months, WebSENSE took down their list, with an explanation
that their competitors simply blocked the links they provided
immediately.

http://peacefire.org/censorware/WebSENSE/#porn_lists

Yes, given that people might look at Wikipaedia's blacklist, it
should probably be secret, or if that is not allowed under its
licence, at least hidden from Google.