Let us revisit the
Evidence Presented by SlimVirgin to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (WAC) in the matter of "Attack Sites", as that was the incident that incited me to take the novel if not indeed virginal step, for me, of trying to
Talk To The ArbCom — its's the new
Talk To The Hand — under the authorship of
Name Redacted.
QUOTE
Evidence presented by SlimVirginThe controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position.
Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this:
Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia.
The only websites affected are Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis.
The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it", rather than "hey, come and have a look!"
The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position.
Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In view of the evidence that
Name Redacted is now and forever blocked by the
Jay J.G. known as
Jpgordon — incidentally supplying continuing evidence,
as if it were ever in short supply, of exactly what kind of "welcome" Wikipedia holds out to "any serious, well thought out criticism of Wikipedia" — I will continue my responses in a Forum where the capacity for critical reason is not yet an altogether lost cause.
Jon Awbrey
This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: 
Wikipedia: A Threat To Civil Society, No More Monsieur Nice Guy
Jonny Cache Wikipedia: A Threat To Civil Society 
