[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Wily D]

On 9/20/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Sheldon Rampton wrote
> >
> > > LOL. I didn't realize that the idea of "attack sites" could be
> > > extended to refer to anyone who attacks ANYONE.
> >
> > "Attack site" is a really useless piece of terminology (up there with "wheel war"). It shortcircuits thought. What this is about is trash biography, baiting and bullying. I hope the case at least clarifies thoughts on this.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> Usefule comment, Charles.  I ahave a hard time seeing that these trash
> sites could or should be linked on Wikipedia at all.  I delete3 links
> to other much better sites thatt aren't classified as attack sites all
> of the time.  Unless it's an article about a famous trash biography
> site, what is it doing on Wikipedia as a link in the first place?  Or
> war we diswcussing userpage links or something else?  LP
>
KP

For the most part these sites shouldn't be linked, you're right. For
that, we don't need ArbCom to say "No linking to Encyclopaedia
Dramatica" - we all already know that, and anyone who doesn't can be
educated, and anyone who still doesn't get it can be educated with
extreme prejudice. ;)

But MichaelMoore.com?  Slashdot?  Conservapedia? There are legitimate
encyclopaedic reasons to link to these (specifically, [[Michael
Moore]], [[Slashdot]] and [[Conservapedia]].  And given the way the
quality of "attack sites" is rising, it may not be long before we're
talking about purging links to GlobeandMail.com or Princeton.edu

The "Oh, it's just WilyDisagoatfucker.blogspot.com, there'll never be
any encyclopaedic reason for wanting to link to it" been proven false
three times that I know of.  People worried about the unclear language
in what's going on are not overreacting.

Cheers, WilyD