User talk:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy

Nice

Nicely argued. You give more lattitude to link to sites than I would, but I consider the matter similar to how WP:BLP relates to standard policy; it does not differ but only makes the enforcement and application a priority. I also think you could note that a couple of the major proponents of the absolutist position have themselves been the victim of sustained and vicious off-Wiki attacks, and that the majority (if not all) of the non-absolutists sympathise with their situation, but not their proposed solution. LessHeard vanU 23:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the essay as well. I especially liked this section. One thing I am not sure is correct and do not feel like looking up at the moment is this: "So we end up with a "I can't define it, but I know one when I see one" attitude (like a Supreme Court justice once expressed with regard to pornography). I thought that opinion was regarding obscenity, but I am not sure. In any case, this is a nice essay and thanks for writing your thoughts on this. daveh4h 06:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The justice involved was Potter Stewart, and the quote actually referred to "hard-core pornography" as what he knows when he sees (and went on to say that the film that was the subject of the particular case wasn't.) *Dan T.* 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put

I checked out your personal home page too. Nice. --Sheldon Rampton 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Extremely well thought out and executed. Thank you, Dan. ---- Michael David 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read, and the bit about you cant have a list of BADSITES as it would defeat the point is frankl;y hilarious (now why didnt I think of that when I was suggeting we have just such a list), SqueakBox 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good essay

And right on point. Ab e g92contribs 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To mention

You really ought to mention the Kafkaesque interpretation in WP:BADSITES which led to links to attack sites being removed *from the attack sites policy discussion when they were being used as examples of why we might want to link to attack sites*. Ken Arromdee 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay

This "policy" is horrendous; thanks for explaining why so well, Dan. CynicElle 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Great essay. Carcharoth 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay

Try discusing this with the anonymous editor who worked on controversial topics, and who one night suddenly found his family website with his kids names etc. linked to multiple wikipedia talk pages in an attempt to intimidate him over a content dispute. In addition his boss was contacted and false allegations made about his on-wiki behaviour. If those links had not been removed as quickly and as thoroughly as they were I personally would have had nothing more to do with this project. We still lost a good knowledgeable editor in the process anyway but the damage could have been greater. This is not about suppressing criticism - it is ensuring people can edit safely on contentious topics such as abortion without fear of real life reprisals. Sophia 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This essay doesn't say that links can't be removed. It says that a blanket policy of removing all links blindly is bad. The links can still be removed if inappropriate, which these would be.

Besides, this is about attack sites. What you describe is not an attack *site*, but a plain attack, which can always be removed and is not affected by this essay or the BADSITES policy at all. Ken Arromdee 14:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sophia (and Dan !) - and i've only just stumbled across this talk page after the last 24hrs of wiki editing, so just to say again that i think this essay is pretty good - well done. Now to sophia - that's a very emotive example you give, and of course any right minded person would be horrified at that kind of situation, but i think it's covered quite well by dan's point that here at wikipedia, we can't actually help secure anyone's anonymity - there's a whole real world out there, and if your name or avatar can possibly be linked back to your name and address then unfortunately this policy is unlikely to be able to do anything to prevent that, despicable as that may be.

However the collateral damage is huge - so assuming that this isn't in substance if not in fact more of a politically slanted attempt at policy, then it's still unlikely to yield net positive results, i think. Have you seen Serpent's Choice solution? - I think that's pretty neat, and may meet your approval also.... best - Purples 13:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much decided to ignore whatever happens there and act on my conscience. I'm perfectly happy to justify anything I do and take the rap if I'm wrong. Sophia 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

As one who has been editing Wikipedia since 2002, but has recently gotten put off by the editors trying to inflict their worldview on Wikipedia with deletions, and erasures, let me say this was a very nice essay. A note of correction, however. In the section where you talk about Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Her last name is Nielsen Hayden, not just Hayden.Shsilver 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right brains

I agree with 95% of what you wrote. But I don't think the bit about right/left brains is fair (and I speak here as a computer scientist, so it's not that I think it's targeting me). You're saying that people who believe the opposite of you are emotional rather than logical. This cannot be read as anything but an attack. Worse, given that the most prominent of your opponents are women, you are (probably unintentionally) perpetuating an old and harmful stereotype about women. So I think that section should probably be removed. Novalis 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... I'll think about it. However, it's not entirely without basis; here are some sample excerpts from the opposing comments that led me to that hypothesis: To me that attitude indicates no sensitivity... very disturbing... appalling... highly troubling... a distressing thought... alarmingly below average maturity, empathy and sensitivity... His entire approach to the "attack sites" issue has been cold, clinical, detached from reality and totally lacking in empathy. *Dan T.* 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's more controversial, I've moved that section to the talk page:

It was also wrong - I have a degree in Astrophysics and was a computer programmer/system manager for a long time. If we are being politically incorrect then I would say it's an experience vs. not a clue situation. Sophia 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Sophia brings up another factor which is typical of debates about feminism, which is that men haven't had the same experience as women, and thus find it difficult to understand an argument that comes from the context of that experience. I'm open about my personal information online, so it's not hard to find my home address, phone number, etc. The worst thing that's happened to me on account of this was this threat (I told them I was in New York, and that New York doesn't enter UK libel judgments, so they threatened to sue me here. They haven't yet). But for women, the situation is different. If someone threatens sexual violence, they know that they're in a group with a one in four or so chance of experiencing attempted rape during their lifetime.

I think when people are opposed to the BADSITES policy, they're thinking of Making Light, while when people are in favor it, they're thinking about sites that (frequently) reveal personal information. Revealing personal information can be (as the 9th circuit noted in the Nuremberg Files case) a true threat. I'm not saying that I think the line should be drawn somewhere different. I'm saying that the experience of being on the wrong end of a threat is different for men than for women, which is one factor leading people to different conclusions. Novalis 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr - wrong again. I was refering to people who have had experience of this situation either directly or indirectly versus those that theorize about their right to information. This has nothing to do with feminism and I know many male editors who were also involved who support my view. Sophia 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this sounds like pseudo science to me. I am fully aware of how the different spheres of the brain react to different stimuli (emotional vs. logical response), but to casually cast the differing parties of a dispute into one or either camp on the basis of accusations of the "deficiencies" of the other parties understanding is preposterous. To rebutt the the previous emphasis on who is emotional and who is not, could not the option to remove the freedom of an editor to choose if a site did or did not constitute an attack site be considered an authoratarian response that tramples individuals rights to protect the common good? That hardly seems the appropriate response by someone who is lead by the heart. Also, if the sternly non empthatic faction were so imbued with cold calculating logic then why is there still this debate? Why haven't the steely jawed defenders of the right to choose withdrawn and allowed the clear logic of their position to define their position, rather than continuing/escalating the arguements?

Frankly, I have seen much logic and reason from both sides, and a great deal more passion (often over-riding sense and civility) on each side of this great divide. I don't believe that this aspect of possible lack of interaction by the two factions or reconciliation between the differing viewpoints is worthy of what is otherwise an excellent essay.

I am saying this as someone who originally pointed out that a few with the absolutist view has suffered the consequences of having identities either revealed or attempts to, and that it may colour their view on matters. I never meant to say that such experience has produced an emotive response over-riding their critical faculties, as Sophia says it is a question of experience. I have also been stalked, and my emotional response is to retain my liberal outlook and continue to argue for non-absolution in everything (*yes, very quick, this is of course a paradox; I am an absolutist for universal non-absolution) and use my logical thinking to persue this stance.

Sophia and I (as examples only) are passionate and committed about the same thing, and we both apply our faculties to it. We differ in how we interprete it by our experiences, beliefs, and understandings, and not which side of the brain is sparking most. LessHeard vanU 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Damn, this was only going to be a few sentences or a couple of short paragraphs at most. Perhaps I should write any essay? :~)[reply]

Why do I care so much about privacy? I think it is for two main reasons; editor security and the knowledge that you can participate in controversial articles without fear of real life reprisals, and the idea that if you wish, the quality of your edits stand on their own two feet without call to reputation. I was upset enough when I was "outed" by checkuser as the other-half of a quite argumentative editor as I really didn't want to be judged by association (not for any misdoings on our part I might add but because he was suspected as a sockpuppet for agreeing with an editor under investigation). I understand the objections to BADSITES and agree as I think a rogues gallery is a dumb idea but I would still like a simple statement of policy so that when these problems occur we can swiftly deal with them with as little fuss and publicity as possible. Sophia 11:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in your right mind, or just your right brain?

Since I wrote the original version of this essay, I've had a thought... perhaps some part of the big, contentious debate is actually a right brain / left brain thing. Supposedly one side of our brains is more into rigorous logic, and the other into feelings and intuition... while we all (with rare brain-damaged exceptions) have both sides in us, often one side or the other will be dominant. Computer geeks, scientists, and engineers tend to be left-brained and follow linear reasoning, while poets, artists, and social workers tend to be right-brained and more holistic in their thought process. It seems from the tone of many of the comments in the debate that the pro-link-ban people tend to be right-brained (and see their opponents as lacking compassion and empathy), while the anti-link-ban people tend to be left-brained (and see their opponents as illogical and unreasonable). Maybe that's why everybody seems to be talking right past one another.

Top Notch

This essay is very well put, and i couldn't endorse it more strongly. I agree with it wholeheartedly. DES ^(talk) 04:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One-woman standing ovation, with a friendly little heckle thrown in

Hey Dan, smart stuff here. Bravo and thanks for speaking up for sanity.

Now. What about this left-brain-right-brain stuff? I think it's hooey. Those who've made links to "attack sites" their raison d'être have their raisons, many of which I'm sure are logical, even calculating. Just as my reasons for opposing censorship are as visceral as they are intellectual. Litmus tests moreover have their own uses, beyond whatever policy proposal they're attached to; they can be a quick measure of loyalty for one thing. Now back to the applause...

Oh wait I'm not done yet. Dan, poets aren't right-brained! OK, some of them are. But poetry is verbal architecture; of all written things poems have the greatest structural and material integrity – more than legal contracts, political constitutions. Maybe not more than mathematical proofs. Nabokov used to talk about the "precision of the artist and the passion of the scientist." He was both writer and lepidopterist so he'd know.--G-Dett 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I guess I wasn't in my right mind (or brain?) when I wrote that... it's not in the actual essay now, but just preserved for historical purposes in the talk page. *Dan T.* 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

There's an encyclopaedic purpose to linking to Stormfront. There isn't one to linking to your friends at WR. Grace Note 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust survivors

I removed "Some, especially Holocaust survivors, may regard any appearance of such symbols as an emotional assault on themselves..." and simply described the symbols as emotionally assaultive. Virtually all Holocaust survivors have been adamant that the world must be educated about the Nazis. I think you'll find that there are remarkably few who will decide to spend an evening cuddled up around Wikipedia articles about the Nazi Party, then become alarmed upon seeing a swastika. (No opinion on the essay as a whole). JonathanPenton 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay a little long winded

Makes some good points, but it really rambles.

One very good point though -- since there's no list, there's no away to know what is an attack site and what isn't. Even the one Avi told me about last week, I mean, it's been deleted from my talk page. I don't even remember what is was anymore since I was just undoing someone else's removal of the link. What exactly is to prevent me from making the same mistake again? Am I going to have to keep a mental list of all the attack sites so I don't actually link to them? I got enough ^#^@ to keep track off. Maybe a crib sheet next to my computer? And who decides what-is-what anyway? If I disagree, someone's going to have to give me the exact link which shows where the site reveals personal information to prove their point; but if they did that they would be violating policy. This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, but is completely impossible to police.

If there's really no consensus here, the obvious solution is for everyone to just ignore this imposed policy, per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. Your essay, if you stand by it, should probably just make that recommendation. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess your essay, however rambling, induced me to carry on the battle by actually fixing the policy. My call to anarchy is probably a little premature. The main thing is, I don't (and won't) use email here, so all these arguments that links can just be sent by email don't apply to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to link to attack sites

Another reason is "as examples in the discussion about the attack sites policy".

Another one has turned up: to defend oneself against accusations about one's supposed activity on those sites. Ken Arromdee 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Oppose

This may be a bad idea, but I'm going to collect (in a straw poll sort of way, not as a vote) a simple list of the names of the people who appear to support and oppose Dan's essay. (Feel free to add yourself if I missed you, or delete yourself if I transcribed your signature inappropriately.)

Be forewarned everyone who considers responding here, that your declaration of support may result in your future RfA being torpedoed. Even more so if you can be accused of living or editing from the same state as a banned user in a bad faith accusation by an admin [1]. What's even more disheartening is when an arbitrator refuses to call the admin on their bad faith and NPA accusation [2]. Review the evidence, and draw your own conclusions. CLA 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

*Dan T.* 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LessHeard vanU 23:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sheldon Rampton 02:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael David 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ab e g92contribs 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CynicElle 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DES ^(talk) 04:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G-Dett 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Summit (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CLA 02:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Elian ^Talk 11:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oldhippy1947 | Talk 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nigosh 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CBD 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Arromdee 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alecmconroy 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Melsaran (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) I just read it, in full. Awesome essay, really well-thought out.[reply]
Derktar 23:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose:

Grace Note 03:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin's Blog

Kelly Martin's Blog could end up on badsites. SakotGrimshine 03:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already was once forcibly de-linked on those grounds, but that didn't stick. *Dan T.* 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just because of her past high position and present still somewhat high (at least on IRC) position? SakotGrimshine 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin doesn't try to out people. It's quite possible that the removal of links from her userpage to her blog was just a piece of trolling from someone who wanted to make the idea of removing privacy violations look bad by extending it to cases where it didn't apply. I have no idea whether or not that was the case, but, as I said at WT:NPA, any troll can make any policy look bad by deliberately misunderstanding it and taking action which it doesn't justify, while citing it as the basis of their action. ElinorD (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore

Didn't Voldemort put some sort of curse on his own name so that when you said "Voldemort" it got indexed all over the internet in giant search engines and allowed bad people to find it instantly? I think that was in Book 7 and caused a lot of grief. And that, in a nutshell, is why we have the BADSITES policy. --Tbeatty 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I wrote the essay way before Book 7 came out, and we don't actually have the BADSITES policy except as a failed policy proposal (even Jimbo said so)... But if bad guys swarm in and wreak havoc whenever and wherever certain sites are mentioned, you might have a point. Can you cite any actual cases? *Dan T.* 11:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean today? Today it was Michael Moore's Minions. But the problem in my mind isn't the idiots swarming in, it's the publicity afforded these sites by the search services. wikipedia is one of the biggest hits for google and putting these sites in front of the eyeballs of a lot of people is just not a good idea especially when they advocate violating WP policy. let them do their own advertising. --Tbeatty 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it's the attempts to remove links that stir up heated battles that attract trolls on all sides... just leaving the links alone quietly probably wouldn't stir up anything. *Dan T.* 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the attack is usualy the first thing from an external site and that generates the most trolls. The battle in wikipedia isn't between trolls. It's between editors that want to protect the editor who was attacked and editors who want to keep the links. Look at MichaelMoore.com links. Trolls attacked THF. But the link battle was between long time editors. --Tbeatty 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty glad I am in the wrong time zone - the only discussion I felt I could contribute to was archived by the time I read it... Generally, there are those among the pro and anti deletionist factions who still want a definitive (i.e. the one they would support) policy on linking to sites which contain attack content - the Michael Moore spat has just been the latest venue. I will be attempting to keep out of it, but I cannot promise not to do so; sometimes assumptions based on poor logic do need exposing... ah, well! LessHeard vanU 19:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy system

Another reason for not pursuing the BADSITES policy has occurred to me; the old convoy system of "protecting" merchant ships from attack in wartime. In WWI and WWII there was a system of protecting the merchant fleets from attack by the enemy, you placed them all together within a ring of defenders and slowly made the perilous voyage. Of course, the problem was that nearly all conveys were slow - since the cruising speed of the slowest member determined the speed of the convey, even if the majority could average four or five knots faster. The result was better survivability of the slowest vessels, but at an increased risk to those who could have made the voyage more quickly and thus with less exposure. There was also the need for the slower convoys to be more expensively policed by armed vessels.

It appears that BADSITES places conditions on the majority simply to protect the few who have experienced problems with regard to their privacy. However, it isn't as if that minority didn't already have recourse to policies to protect themselves - WP:ATTACK and WP:HARASS clearly does not allow the posting of any material (which would include a link directly to off-wiki attack material) - but by invoking a general ban (backed by sanctions) per BADSITES there is the possibility that editors without privacy concerns can find themselves at risk of warning and blocks for using external links that is otherwise permitted on WP. A case of the many potentially suffering for the sake of the few. Further, the resources of the protecting forces (admins and others) would likely to be required policing this policy from the actions of good faith contributors.

It is not a great analogy; the requirements of wartime and the "rights" of editors to edit anonymously cannot bear great scrutiny, but it indicates a mindset that does some harm to Wikipedia. The protection of the rights of a few which can impact the rights of the many. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who will be the villains if BADSITES were enacted?

Currently the discussion clearly delineates the villains of off wiki attacks as the site hosts and contributors - and quite rightly. However, if BADSITES (or its variant within WP:NPA) became policy then attention would move from the permabanned sites to those who type in the link. That would be the contributor to Wikipedia, the editor, the individual. As well as a common or garden vandal tapping out racist, homophobic, and/or sexist commentary the efforts of WP admins and other concerned editors will be exercised on those of the contributing community who mistakingly (or otherwise) includes a link to a site which has (or had) details of other community members identity that those members wish not more widely known... WP editors being classed as vandals? That is fucked up! LessHeard vanU 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment has been fleshed out with restrictions and exemptions. Please have a look and comment. ←Ben^B4 06:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]