[oops, sent just to Jay first time]
On 30/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A link to
whichever attack site we're discussing? Pretty remarkable if
one turns up. A link to something that someone might construe as an
attack site in the future for their own bizzare purposes? As we have
seen, sadly, not improbable...
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what circumstances would
linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please
give some specific examples, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, and the purpose of Talk: pages is to discuss article
content, and that article content must comply with [[WP:V]] and
[[WP:RS]].
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its
ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to
link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole
Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by
someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through
with a bit of noise.
Oh, no, someone decides it's an attack site. Remove all links, start
threats for replacing them, vast amount of noise and fuss. ML is an
extreme case - it's *obviously* a legitimate source - but I do wonder
how many more cases of these would occur with a strongly worded "no
attack sites" policy. After all, it's been - what, a month since we
first threw this idea around as a general rule?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk