Wed 29th August 2007, 5:43am
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Tue 28th August 2007, 10:56pm)
Can we have a link to this, and to the discussion?diff of cyde's comment soon to be archived discussion
cyde's motivation here to open his eyes to BADSITES and the like is probably more driven by his personal politics than any integrity...but maybe now that he is more aware of it integrity plays a role.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 28th August 2007, 5:17pm)
Another unexpected action by Cyde. I'm not the best person at personalities and shifting alliances of WP, so correctly if I'm wrong here. Isn't Cyde allied with Danny?
I don't know if he is allied with Danny or not, but if he is, Cyde's actions would not be inconsistent with Danny's opinion regarding BADSITES.
On English Wikipedia, there has been some controversy about whether it is, or ought to be, the policy that linking to so-called "attack sites" against Wikipedia and Wikipedians is to be banned. Some administrators have (overzealously, in some others' opinions) removed links to criticism sites from such places as talk pages, evidence pages for ArbCom cases, and even in a few cases from actual articles where they were being used as a source. I wrote an essay on this issue. What is your opinion? Dtobias 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elect...te.22_link_bans
I do not believe we should censor these sites, nor do I believe that we should make them out to be more important than they really are. As such, I think that people should be able to cite them in certain very specific circumstances relating to the content that appears on them, such as an ArbCom ruling. Other than that, I see no reason why they should be included. Danny 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
maybe a little bit of a vague answer on Danny's part, but overall he doesn't seem all that concerned about it and he isn't arguing for a spam blacklist addition or anything drastic.