[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Wily D]

On 9/21/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/07, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> But why link to these sites?  MichaelMoore.com would be linked in his
> article, and, where relevant, and when relevant, the site would be
> linked in other articles possibly when another source is discussing
> Michael Moore.
>
> But it sounds like there are tons of links to these sites all over
> Wikipedia.  Of the three, Michael Moore is not the best example,
> because he genuinely generates controversy that is related to many
> other people, and I can see him having many links.
>
> I don't know what slashdot is.  I think I know what Conservapedia is,
> but it was about as boring as Wikipedia Review, with less diversity of
> material.  Although if you're scraping scum off the bottom of the
> barrel, having a greater variety of bottom feeders eating and
> producing that scum, may not be that worthwhile.
>
> I'm afraid that I don't see the controversy in this whole thing.  I do
> know, however, that there is no one on Wikipedia who could explain it
> in a couple of paragraphs, with a couple of links, so that an outsider
> not deeply enmeshed in the sourrounding intrigue might understand.
>
> KP
>
To the best of my knowledge, each of these contraversies was
associated with the most obvious articles - the MONGO ruling was used
to justify delinking MichaelMoore.com from [[Michael Moore]],
delinking slashdot.org from [[Slashdot]], delinking conservapedia.com
from [[Conservapedia]].  Thes particular sites don't really have much
need to be linked outside of their own articles, or perhaps a few
others (realistically, MichaelMoore.com might have some page that'd be
a good external link for [[Sicko]] or something).

Cheers, WilyD