On 8/24/07, crock spot <crockspot(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A clear violation of [[WP:NPA#External links]]. Just asking nicely is
likely
to fail. That link should be removed from wikipedia until the attack is
removed from the website.
Crockspot
So, we should not link the official website of a notable person, just
because that notable person said some not-nice things about an editor?
People like Jayjg were saying "Oh, this wouldn't happen - this is clearly
not covered by the policy, all you need to do is use some common sense."
Common sense is apparently not so common.
(Oh, yes, and should we remove all citations to
michaelmoore.com pages in
our articles because it is now apparently an "attack site"?)
When there is a trade-off between protecting one of us, and the quality of
our encyclopaedia, which ought to come first? I suspect this disagreement is
really intractable because it is a question of values. It is impossible to
objectively answer this question.
When attacked, some people's response is to demand that all links to the
attack be removed. When I appeared on Hivemind, my response was to link to
it - from a userbox, no less. These different responses occur not because
some people see the logic and some people don't, but because different
people have a different way of applying the same logic.
If you ask me, the only way we'll ever put this debate to rest is if we have
some leadership which can push something through. Remember, the only reason
many think this policy was/is warranted was a vague edict of the arbcom's.
Of course, I am doubtful we will see much leadership on this question. It's
too hot-button an issue. It will probably be left to burn out on its own,
pissing off a lot of editors on both sides in the process. I'm not sure if
that's what anyone wants, but that's what'll probably happen.
Johnleemk