Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment/Archive 1

Proposal
'''This proposal could be on its way to becoming a policy. Can you help?'''

Good start
Since I think I have a polarizing reputation, I'm gonna try to keep a more "hands-off" approach here, making suggestions rather than edits. Anything I say that others have confidence in, please steal without attribution, as always. :)

For starters, consider User:Alecmconroy/Brainstorm. I've just tried to go through the points and explain how our current policies mandate the NYB proposal. Basically, NPOV and EL argue for including links in some cases. BLP, RS, HARASS, VANDAL, and (outside of article space) NPA mandate deletion in some cases. --Alecmconroy 01:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NYB proposed adding "pages containing defamatory or exceptionally offensive material about Wikipedia editors" be added to types of pages that probably shouldn't be linked to.
 * I might suggest some sort of language that "reputable reliable sources" shouldn't be deleted, just to make extra sure reputable journalistic sources like NYT are never ever purged under the policy.  On the other hand, this is definitely implied by the phrase "do not generally engage in these practices".
 * --Alecmconroy 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion to anyone with authorial spirit. Both Will Beback  and LessHeard  have emphasized the importance of Ignore All Rules.   I think one of the things which  has made formulating a consensus policy so difficult in this situation is a type of "black and white thinking" where whole top-level-domains are either included or excluded, and where there are rigid, explicit rules for what is what.  The exceptions, and the exceptions to the exceptions, start to become unwieldy and disruptive.
 * It might be fruitful to take the other track, and layout the "general traits" of sites to include or exclude. Things like notability, reliability, and usefulness to the article/discussion would point towards inclusion.  Links to pages that are unnotable, unreliable, and not useful would point toward exclusion.  WP:CANVAS is another example of a guideline that was hard to find hard-and-fast rules for, and I think they did splendid job on it.  The table at WP:CANVAS is a particularly creative way to convey "general principles".
 * Just a stylistic brainstorm though-- what we have now is good, and seems supported, so I would want any changes to preserve that sort of support.
 * --Alecmconroy 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Drawing the line
A problem I see with implementation is, who decides what category a site falls in to? Is WR okay and ED isn't, or both aren't? And where would the Michael Moore thing go? &larr;Ben B4 02:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Alec's brainstorms on these issues (linked above). Remember too that there will always be discussion about how to apply a policy - it really is much more effective to deal with principles in policy rather than (over specific) rules. Privatemusings 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the end, there will always be disputes over the application, but if we could at least get consensus on some abstract guidelines, that would substantially help things. As it is, every time one of these disputes comes up, people are debating both principle, policy, AND application all at the same time, and edit warring at the same time.  If we write up the parts of the debate that DO have consensus, that should give us a good framework for resolving future disputes.  --Alecmconroy 05:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For Example
Here something that might merit incorporation in the policy if it has the confidence of the editors here:

Factors to consider when evaluating links
The ideal example of a link to include would be a link to a reliable, notable source which is engaged in a good-faith attempt at criticism, while respecting the privacy of editors. For example, an New York Times article which, in an isolated event, criticizes the actions of a specific editor, but doesn't list his fullname/address/phone number.

The ideal example of a link to exclude would be a link to an unreliable and non-notable source engaged in a systemic campaign of harassment which violates the privacy of editors. For example, a disgruntled internet user has a blog posting that lists the names, addresses, and phone numbers of multiple editors and explicitly encourages harassment of them.

--Alecmconroy 21:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added and tweaked the table. Making it so explicit that there are five dimensions to consider gives me stomach pains, but it's the truth.
 * It occurs to me that if we want to avoid unconstitutional vagueness with the wikilawyers, then we need to order those five dimensions by importance in evaluation. &larr;Ben B4 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your AND/AND/AND/AND and OR/OR/OR/OR in the version above doesn't create any vagueness. It indicates (which I agree with) that it should be "all or nothing" - if ANY of the green is met, allow the link - only forbid it if ALL the red applies. (I'd also clarify that "isolated event" does NOT mean we should allow linking to the "event" itself if the rest of the red ones apply) P.S. to some extent we should also consider the intent of the editor posting the link - if they are harassing, then even if the link itself passes the test it should be removed - if they're innocent, it should be gently explained to them —Random832 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I debated about that. I wanted to make sure somebody didn't just pick one of the factors and decide to exclude on it alone.  But it's not strictly as strict logic as we imply in the table.  I think highly reliable or highly reliable or good-faith criticism are automatic flags that the links shouldn't be removed (due to this policy).  But beyond that, I'm not sure quite how to weight things. --Alecmconroy 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a problem with that. If we have a notable person, say Michael Moore, continuously publishing expletive-filled tirades against us with names, addresses, and phone numbers, those can't be removed.  It really is a balance of all five factors. &larr;Ben B4  18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify further - "Isolated Event" vs "Systemic Campaign" should not so much a factor in evaluating the incident itself, but rather as to whether (again, if it otherwise fails) it should be the entire site or just the page with the harassment on it, that gets blacklisted. —Random832 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it clearly will not make any difference on the first instance, when it is an isolated event by definition, regardless of what follows. &larr;Ben B4 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we also need to clarify that "taint" does not attach - if someone has legitimate/good-faith criticism, but the issues were first brought to their attention by a site which would itself be forbidden, that doesn't mean they should be tarred with the same brush on such nebulous claims as "advancing the agenda" of the other site. —Random832 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you are talking about. It seems a shame that we would have to be explicit about that, but we apparently do. &larr;Ben B4  18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Privacy" should not be last on the chart. "Intention" should be last, as it can only be judged on the overall basis of the other factors. "Frequency" is one of those inputs. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right; done. &larr;Ben B4 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith Criticism of Wikipedia Can Involve Revealing Some's Identity
There are situations in which the identity of an editor is relevant to good faith criticism: --Pleasantville 12:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer
 * Conflict of Interest: Editor posts material, such as links to his or her own published work, anonymously, circumventing COI scrutiny.
 * Propagandists & publicists: Editor's real name would reveal a situation in which questions of being paid to edit for a 3rd party should be raised. These issues cannot be raised unless the editor's identity can be revealed.

I think 'conflict of interest' properly covers both points raised. It's also important to note that these are not conceptual concerns, there are many concrete examples supplied by various editors in the fora this has been discussed.

Opinions may fork at this points as to what the best policy is. One perspective is that if an editor with a conflict of interest makes a 'good' edit, then their identity is irrelevant (the heart of 'comment on contributions, not the contributor'). In conflict with this position is the fact that good faith (and therefore that editor's contributions) should be undermined by the certain knowledge that any given editor is in fact a partisan.

These are thorny issues raised by pseudo anonymity. I would prefer that our ideal that every editor is equal (IP with uber cabalist) were strengthened, which might render the point moot. I would also veer on the side of caution, and probably wouldn't incorporate the above into the policy for now. Privatemusings 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also the matter of the object of "Good Faith." Good faith to the WP project is not the same as good faith with respect to the person one might suspect of COI or being, say, a paid political operative. --Pleasantville 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Same problem as in the arbcom case
"It is worth noting that, in general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the definition of reliable sources for article content."

Proponents of BADSITES have often said "there's little chance these would be reliable sources for articles", used that to justify the policy, and then applied the policy to more than just articles. I think this is falling into the same trap. Such sites may be needed as sources in talk pages, policy discussions, and such even when they are not sources for articles. Ken Arromdee 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the solution is just to note, somewhere in this, that if a site meets the critera for a reliable source, it is a "criticism" site, not an "attack site". Even if that "criticism" is impolite, rude, or hurtful-- meeting the criteria for being a reliable source is automatic proof that the link shouldn't be expunged. --Alecmconroy 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. If we prohibit linking to a New Yorker article because it outs a respected admin or anyone else, we have ceased to become an encyclopedia. &larr;Ben B4  14:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added:


 * If a web site or page discussing Wikipedia or its editors meets the reliable source criteria, then it is considered criticism and not an attack, even if it includes statements or quotations that are rude, hurtful, or that expose the identity of Wikipedia editors. For example, if a news magazine publishes an article stating the full identity of a widely respected and previously anonymous wikipedian, then linking to, quoting, and discussing that article are permitted in articles and on talk pages. < !-- see Essjay controversy for a real example --> If you are in doubt about whether a source is considered reliable, you may ask on the reliable sources noticeboard; please do not repeat any potentially harmful information until the reliability of the source has been ascertained by uninvolved editors.

&larr;Ben B4 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

An attack site on a talk page is usually used to make assertions about its content, and it's a reliable source for its own content, so literally speaking, it's allowed by the proposed policy. But it won't get interpreted that way. It'll just end up abused the same way as usual: the claim that attack sites aren't usually reliable sources for articles will be used to remove links from talk and other non-article pages.

You can only prevent the abuse either by not mentioning reliable sources at all, or by making it very clear that links on talk pages, policy discussion, RFAs, etc. are allowed. It should say something like "A site being used as evidence for its own content, such as a claim on a talk page to explain what is happening on the site, is considered a reliable source". It has to be explicit, because if it's not, it'll get abused.

I also don't like the idea of saying "if it contains an attack and is a reliable source, it doesn't count as an attack". This is like trying to make a law against driving your car uninsured but writing the law to say "all cars are illegal, but cars that have insurance don't count as cars". Defining attack sites so that some don't count as attack sites is going to cause a lot of confusion. Ken Arromdee 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow. Do you think we should allow links to attack pages because they are considered reliable primary sources of the fact that they are an attack? Unless there are reliable secondary sources, why should we? &larr;Ben B4  16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer, I think, is when a notable source of debatable reliability engages in attack/criticism. For example, Michael Moore is notable and his official website is linked to, as a matter of course, in his biography article.  If Michael Moore makes a claim on his website, we might or might not agree that he is a RELIABLE source-- but we would agree he is a notable primary source, and his site should be linked to on those grounds. --Alecmconroy 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you are saying. I agree with you for talk pages, and I hope that you agree that a link to a page such as Michael Moore's was (if the harassment had not been on his front page) should not be included in any article. I am not sure how to codify this.  I will take a tentative stab at it. &larr;Ben B4  17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added: (After a few revisions.) &larr;Ben B4 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Links to harassment which does not violate editors' privacy may be included in discussions about it on talk and project pages, but not for other purposes or in articles.

While the Moore case was an example, I was thinking of the case where someone says "everyone should ignore you because you post on an attack site". The user replies by giving links to his actual postings on the attack site so that people can see that they are innocuous. The links get deleted as attack site links, with the result that the user can't defend himself. (This actually happened once.)

Another example would be when discussing attack site policy or when trying to argue that a site is or is not an attack site, or trying to argue that attack sites may be useful. It may be necessary to give links to attack sites in the process. In the past, BADSITES proponents have indiscriminately deleted those links.

Neither of these really has anything to do with links to harassment; in fact, the point is to give links to non-harassing parts of a site even if it's mostly dedicated to harassment. Ken Arromdee 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording tweak
"This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" or call for editors to be harassed. "

One tweak that might be considered: as worded, this would apply even to "good faith" outing sites, like Wikiscanner and NYT's outing of notable editors. As wikipedia becomes more prominent, we can expect will be more outings of people. The real-world journalists have a duty to report conflicts-of-interests when they discover them-- and there's nothing wrong with that.

Instead, make it clear that outing by itself, absent intent to harass, isn't inherently verboten: "This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" for the purposes of harassment. " --Alecmconroy 11:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, outing for the purpose of making critical comments about, say, someone's subject area expertise should not be considered harassment as such. --Pleasantville 12:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A loophole like that would effectively void the policy. It'd be an excuse to out any editor. "Editor Joe, whose real name is Joe Blow, isn't listed as a member of the Consulting Engineers of America, therefore he has no justification for making those edits." The next logical progression might be, "Editor Joe doesn't even live in Poughkeepsie, so how can he dare to presume to edit this article. Records show he lives at 1212 Pine St., Pleasanton instead." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The point isn't that outing is NEVER a case of harassment. The point is-- outing isn't ALWAYS a case of harassment either.  Other factors, like reliability, notability, and intention, must be considered.  The NYTimes and Wikiscanner have both engaged in multiple instances of "outing", but they have never harassed. --Alecmconroy 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of anyone being outed by Wikiscanner, nor can I imagine we'd use it as a source for an article. Did the New York Times out anyone, or simply report on a widely-known outing? If outing is permitted in order to criticize an editor's expertise, that's the same as allowing the outing of any and all editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Dutch Prince and Princess Whatstherename, were "outed" (from an IP) by Wikiscanner, and I think the New Yorker broke Essjay's identity. &larr;Ben B4 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP addresses reported by Wikiscanner have been public knowledge all along. And Wikiscanner didn't name names, it simply showed that IPs connected to an institution were editing. As for the NYT, did they break the story? I thought Essjay's identity was already widely known by the time they reported it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dutch Prins Johan Friso and Princess Mabel Wisse Smit were confirmed by their official royal and governmental press-agency to have edited her article as determined by Wikiscanner (in that it wasn't known before Wikiscanner was run, even though the IPs were available.) Essjay controversy says this New Yorker editor's note (not NYT) was the first mention of his real name. &larr;Ben B4 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I might add, Michael Moore claimed to out an editor who had a severe conflict of interest. I haven't looked into whether his claims were actually true or not-- but suppose they were 100% true, and a person had been editing his own article/his company's article so as to promote his personal interests-- that clearly is another good-faith instance of outing-- not outing used as bad-faith harassment. --Alecmconroy 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So in the case of the Dutch royalty, it was one of their own officials who outed them. Since the New Yorker correction says, "Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan," it appears that Essjay outed himself. And obviously Michael Moore didn't out anyone who hadn't already edited for many months under s real name. So my previous objection stands. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I think it's debatable, but you have a good point. However, we kind of got off topic. I am not sure I understand the loophole you are describing, but if it is what I think it is, then it is already closed by the current wording, which only allows outing with links to reliable, non-primary, non-self-published sources. Is that your sense, too? &larr;Ben B4 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The loophole I'm referring to is this assertion: "Also, outing for the purpose of making critical comments about, say, someone's subject area expertise should not be considered harassment as such." I think that "reliable" is an issue. Blogs are considered reliable only in two narrow circumstances: for assertions by and about the blogger himself, and in areas where the blogger is a recognized expert. I think that if we exclude blogs (as self-published sources) then the loophole is probably closed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The exclusion of self-published sources has been removed, so my earlier objection to the proposed language aplies again. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Factor order
The factor order is tricky, but useful. I concur that RS is most important. In my own mind, I think of Notability and Intention being more import than "degree of privacy violation". Which is to say, when a notable person makes attempt at legitimate criticism, we don't exclude that (on these grounds). In contrast, an EXTREMELY notable instance of bad-faith harassment might merit inclusion if the notability of the incident is high enough, i.e. if it were to become covered by lots of media. However, something that's unreliable and non-notable is always going to be excluded anyway, regardless of its treatment of privacy. --Alecmconroy 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done; I also added the italics in: "If a web site or page discussing Wikipedia or its editors meets the reliable source criteria and is neither a primary source nor self-published, then it is considered criticism and not an attack, even if it includes statements or quotations that are rude, hurtful, or that expose the identity of Wikipedia editors." &larr;Ben B4 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that if we don't put the factors on equal footing, that intention should be close to the top (if not _at_ the top). These factors aren't a general catch-all "should a link be allowed" guide, they're for determining whether something is harassment. Something that's not a reliable source can be removed where appropriate per WP:RS without even involving this page. —Random832 13:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The motivation for including RS and notability is to try to curtail future abuses, like those times in the past where reliable/notable sources were temporarily purged. By listing these two factors, and ranking them of primary importance, we help remind people not to purge the New York Times or the New Yorker and the like. --Alecmconroy 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What to do when attacked
While we're brainstorming wishlists, it might be nice to mention a "If you feel harassed" section urging "being cool". If at all possible, it's better for the person who feels harassed to NOT be the one to actually remove the links, due to the obvious COI. WE might not be able to codify that as a rule, but it's a good suggestion. --Alecmconroy 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried, but please proofread and see if you can copy edit it. I'm getting tired. &larr;Ben B4 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting really good. Thank you for all your help with this, Ben :). --Alecmconroy 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Traits of actual harassment

 * Unreliable: Sources that engage in harassment are generally those that are unreliable, knowingly makes false claims, and fails to meet critera for reliable source.  Harassment is usually conducted by self-published sources with no peer review or reputation for reliability.


 * Non-Notable: Sources that engage in harassment are generally those that are non-notable. They typically have not merited mention in reliable sources.


 * Intentionally Bad-faith: True harassment is an act done with intentional bad-faith.


 * Systemic campaign: True harassment is not an isolated event, but is a systemic campaign of actions with the intention of intimidating.


 * No respect for Privacy: True harassment is characterized by a lack of respect for the privacy of others. Publication of people's phone numbers and home addresses against their wishes is one tactic used by most genuine harassment.

What is not considered off-wiki harassment

 * Reliable Sources: If the source reliable source criteria and is neither a primary source nor self-published, it does meet the criteria for even if it includes statements or quotations that are rude, hurtful, or that expose the identity of Wikipedia editors. For example, if a news magazine publishes an article stating the full identity of a widely respected and previously anonymous editor, then linking to, quoting, and discussing that article are permitted in articles and on talk pages. If you are in doubt about whether a source is considered reliable, you may ask on the reliable sources noticeboard; please do not repeat any potentially harmful information until the reliability of the source has been ascertained by uninvolved editors.


 * Notable Sources:  NPOV requires that articles fairly represent all significant views-- even if those views are critical of Wikipedia or its editors.  If a source or view is sufficiently notable to merit discussion in the article, linking to it may be appropriate way.  For example, articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any-- even if that link criticizes/attacks Wikipedia or its editors.


 * Legitimate attempts at criticism: Harassment does not include good-faith criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), teasing our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like.


 * Isolated Events: Otherwise appropriate links to websites that that do not generally engage in harassment of Wikipedians should not be removed simply because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances.


 * Respect for Privacy: Intentional harassment is generally characterize by a lack of respect of the privacy of living persons.  Sites that criticize Wikipedia or Wikipedians, without attempting to violating their privacy by revealing real names and contact info, are usually best regarded as "criticism" rather than "harassment".

--Alecmconroy 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am reluctant to include those because they could be taken out of context, unlike the bullet points going from general restrictions to specific exemptions, and the monolithic table. &larr;Ben B4 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, as I was writing the expanded prose version of the table, I started questioning whether the expansion was even a good idea. I'm not sure that it is-- for both the reason you specified, and for how difficult it is to find a way to explain each factor that draws the right balance. The table seems pretty easy to agree with for everyone.  The prose expansion seems like a source of great disagreement and dispute.  --Alecmconroy 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Move?
How do people feel about Linking to external harassment? I've been trying to reword "off/on-wiki" as it may be confusing jargon to newcomers. &larr;Ben B4 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support - good idea. Privatemusings 05:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Being bold then.... &larr;Ben B4 06:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good change. --Alecmconroy 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Factors to consider when evaluating links
I haven't looked at this in-depth yet, but I just had to say that I loved the Factors to consider when evaluating links section. I think it would really help people put things into context, and I can see this same method being used on other policy/guideline pages (for all sorts of situations). -- Ned Scott 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't take credit for it-- we stole it from WP:CANVASS. :)  Whoever did come up with it deserves a major barnstar.  I think it's a brilliant way to present a complex policy that has to consider a lot of different things. --Alecmconroy 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of issues
Just taking a first look. Some good material, but lots of issues:
 * 1) "This policy applies only" -> that's key, and should probably be somewhere at the top under a "scope" heading.
 * 2) Also regarding scope, is this policy about (i) citation links? (ii) external links? (iii) article content?  (iv) prose outside the mainspace?  All or some combination?  We need to be explicit about what it covers and put that in a "scope" section too.
 * 3) Noted that this only applies to harassment of Wikipedia editors. Why limit it there? We shouldn't harass anyone, period.  Moreover, if a person is a notable individual or otherwise worth mentioning in Wikipedia, should we censor article content and discussion simply because they happen to openly or secretly edit Wikipedia?
 * 4) AGF issues. We could say that this policy only affects conduct, not regular article editing.  But then calling an edit a conduct issue instead of a good faith edit runs up against WP:AGF.  That's especially so in the sections here relating to purpose.  Does this policy apply to name-calling, wikistalking, etc?  Will it be something that people can cite in a heated edit war?  If so it's going to be the subject of a lot of wikilawyering/wikigaming.  If not we should limit the scope to linking and/or citations to external material, and continue to treat flame wars as a conduct issue.
 * WP:CREEP. Why do we need a detailed structure with a bunch of new rules for something already overlapped by a number of other policies and guidelines.   Are we carving out new territory and saying that gets treated here, not there?  If the main purpose is to add "harassment-> bad" to the operation of other concerns like RS, EL, CIVIL, etc., then why not just do that and let each continue to operate under its existing rules?  WP:BLP already addresses poorly sourced contentious material about living people, and harassment is usually derogatory.  Do we mean to override WP:BLP?
 * 1) "Web pages of no encyclopedic value" - what does that mean. If we're talking about use as a source, then that's already covered under WP:RS because if it has no value it's a bad source.  If we're talking external links, then by definition as per WP:EL it's only for material that's not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Does that make it of no value because it doesn't belong here, or would we say it has encyclopedic value because it passes the criteria of WP:EL?  WP:EL already filters out for links to inaccuracies, copyvio, etc.
 * 2) Format. Should number instead of bullet points so they can be cited when taking action (see WP:CSD and WP:NFCC for examples).  Best to move the bolded descriptors to the beginning of each sentence if possible so they can be cited by descriptor too.
 * 3) "It is worth noting..." No, I don't think it's worth noting.  Editorial comments and opinions like this are best left out of the text of rules.
 * 4) "Otherwise appropriate"....duplicates the bullet point immediately above. These two should be merged.
 * 5) "Reliable source criteria". See comment above re. sourcing v. external links.  RS only applies to references, not external links.
 * 6) "Self-published" - that's a mistake, and a distinction not worth making any more than already made in WP:RS. Reliability is a multi-factor thing, and drawing an artificial cutoff boundary in some policies but not others based on whether something is self-published isn't useful.  The only time self-published should be an issue is if there's something inherently, qualitatively different about self-published material that's not there for publisher-published material.  The best SP content is a lot more trustworthy than a lot of non SP content.  Also, it's very slippery to decide what is and is not SP, and lends itself to a bias against small and independent media (which is often mistaken for the concept of SP).  For example, the material on the United Nations website is likely self-published (by the UN).  A high school newspaper is not.  Why draw that line?
 * 7) "unless doing so is unavoidably necessary to explain the concerns". Good point, but this contradicts WP:BLP that says contentious material is removed immediately and without discussion.
 * 8) "Factors to consider" section. I love the format but I'm not sure what this chart means.  Is WP:HARASS going to be a multi-factor test deciding whether material is okay on balance?  That's a useful measure, but the rest of the proposed policy doesn't use a balance test, it uses specific rules to say yes or no.  Which is it?  Also, some of these factors only apply to one kind of material, not others.  For example, reliability only means anything in the concept of sourcing, not EL or talk page edits.  Notability isn't relevant for sourcing or external links, just whether a subject deserves an article, and so on.

-- Wikidemo 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lots of EXCELLENT points for us to think about.


 * Scope
 * Right now, it seems like we're talking about links everwhere. I'm not sure how we should do it.  Outside of article space, I feel like the only thing that really needs to be said is "Don't link to external harassment for the purposes of harassing other editors."  This is a 100% behavior issue-- WP:NPA and WP:HARASS apply.  It should be easy enough to separate the good-faith editors from the simple trolls who are inserting links only for the purposes of bad-faith harassment.  Inside article space, things get far more complicated, because now NPA isn't the issue, NPOV is.  --Alecmconroy 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors vs- Non-editors
 * "Noted that this only applies to harassment of Wikipedia editors. Why limit it there? " I agree we shouldn't make a distinction in this policy, even though realistically this policy is mostly meant to address the current problems we've been experiencing, I agree we would be better talking about "harassment of people in general".   I also think WP:NPOV needs to say, explicitly, that NPOV requires we cover Wikipedia and its editors the same way we cover other institutions and subjects.  I think there's consensus that NPOV does entail that, but the policy page doesn't explicitly state it. --Alecmconroy 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CREEP
 * "Why do we need a detailed structure with a bunch of new rules for something already overlapped by a number of other policies and guidelines?" I would really like us to the take the approach that this isn't a "new" policy, so much as an exposition of how the current wikipedia policies (NPOV, RS, EL, HARASS, NPA) apply to the special case of linking to external harassment.  For example, "Linking to sites that harass" is discourage because "RS Discourages links to partisan sites]].  --Alecmconroy 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Worth Noting
 * "It is worth noting that in general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to qualify as a reliable source."  I think the solution it to note that RS says: "Extremist sources: Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."  If a site qualifies as an "extremist sources", I feel comfortable discouraging their citation on that basis. --Alecmconroy 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Self-published"
 * The self-published thing didn't come out quite like I'd hoped. The intention was that even an unreliable source may be considered a reliable source, in some cases, as a primary source for itself.  Instead, it seems like we're saying only non-self-published sources should considered RS, which is kinda the opposite.  --Alecmconroy 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Tweak
Current wording:
 * "Links to pages of web sites that routinely engage in harassment, but not to a page containing offending material, are discouraged. Additionally, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to qualify as a reliable source."

I think this could be tweaked just a tad. The current logic says that:
 * (1) "Engaging in Harassment" implies "being discouraged"
 * (2) "Engaging in Harassment" implies "non-reliable source".

I would prefer we reverse this a little:
 * (1) "Engage in harassment" is typically a tactic employed by "Partisan, Extremist sites"
 * (2) Citing "Partisan, Extremist sites" is discouraged.

How best to word this, I'm not sure. I can take a stab at it, but I bet it can be improved upon.

Suggested wording:
 * "Routinely engaging in harassment is a tactic which is typically employed by extremist sources. Citing extremist sources is discouraged, even in cases where the cited page does not itself contain offending material.  See WP:RS.

--Alecmconroy 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

info cull.....
I've cut the following;


 * Otherwise appropriate links to web sites that do not usually engage in harassment should generally not be removed if the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in circumstances of extreme harassment or violation of privacy. However, such links should not be added to harass editors or disturb readers.


 * Links to calls for harassment which do not violate editors' privacy and are not clearly hurtful may be included in discussions about them on talk and project pages, but not for other purposes or in articles. Removal of such links from talk or project page discussions about them is discouraged, especially if they can help to contain their impact (e.g., with semi-protection.) In this case, editors should follow the usual talk page guidelines unless such links are being included to harass or disturb.


 * This policy applies only to web pages or sites that engage in privacy violations ("outing"), call for the harassment of editors, or clearly try to hurt or embarrass editors. It does not apply to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not the criticism has merit) or that tease or taunt editors without calling for their harassment, violating their privacy, or trying to hurt or embarrass them.

This, like any other, policy is susceptible to instruction creep, the good faith desire to add clarity which ends up achieving the opposite. It's my belief that the points which remain cover all bases well, remembering of course, that this issue will always boil down to editorial judgment.

I also think it's clearer. Privatemusings 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How to build the original New York Brad proposal using things found around the project
I guess I should move my little spiel here, just so it can get more eyeballs. Basically, I think we can "build" this policy by noting how the other fundamental wikipedia policies apply to this situation. This written for the original NYB proposal-- i know we've since tweaked that a little here and there, but the approach would still work if we thought it was a useful way to go:

Point A
Links to an external webpage that reveals the personal identifying information of a Wikipedia editor who chooses to edit anonymously and whose real-life identity is not generally known, or which expressly or impliedly calls for any editor to be harassed in real life or otherwise, are strictly prohibited. Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to 3RR.

Because:
 * Biographies of living persons is applicable to ALL living persons, including those living persons who are also editors of Wikipedia.
 * Biographies of living persons says: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy."
 * In particular, decisions regarding linking to Off-Wiki Harassment should be mindful of the portions of BLP which discusses respecting the Privacy of Names, Birthdays, and Contact Information.

Point B
Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in the practices described in (A), but where the link is not to the specific webpage containing the offending material, are discouraged. In general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content in any event. Links to such sites should be used, if at all, only where including the link contributes substantially to an article or discussion, and where no other citation for the same information can be reasonably be substituted without loss of content or comprehension.

Because:


 * WP:Reliable Sources says "Extremist sources: Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."
 * Attribution says: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Since websites that engage in the practices are invariably unreliable primary sources, citing them is generally discouraged.

Point C
Otherwise appropriate links to websites that do not generally engage in the practices described in (A) generally should not be removed because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand, such links should not be added for an illegitimate purpose, such as the harassment of any editor.

Because:
 * WP:NPOV mandates that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Removing otherwise appropriate links might, in some cases, be incompatible with the requirements of NPOV.
 * WP:EL says "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." In rare cases of highly notable websites, articles might need link to websites which contain criticism or attacks of Wikipedia or its editors.
 * WP:VANDALISM says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Vandalism might in some cases included links to off-wiki harassment added for illegitimate purposes.  Vandalism may be removed immediately, and repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia can constitute grounds for being blocked.
 * WP:Harassment says "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Adding external links for the purpose of harassment can constitute grounds for being blocked.

Point D
This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" or call for editors to be harassed. It has no application to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), tease our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like, none of which are tantament to outing or harassment.

Because:
 * WP:NPOV mandates that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Applying this policy to sites that simply criticize Wikipedia or it editors might, in some cases, be incompatible with the requirements of NPOV.

Point E
In deciding what links should be included in Wikipedia, the effect of including such links on our editors is a legitimate factor to be considered in the exercise of editorial discretion, although except as described above it is not the only factor to be considered.

Because:
 * Biographies of living persons is applicable to ALL living persons, including those living persons who are also editors.
 * In particular, decisions regarding linking to Off-Wiki Harassment should be mindful of the portions of BLP which discusses respecting the Privacy of Names, Birthdays, and Contact Information.

--Alecmconroy 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's proposal from the ArbCom case
I had posted some thoughts in the context of the pending "Attack sites" arbitration case (see, Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision). I wasn't sure whether the arbitration case or a policy page was the best place to include such proposals, and submitted them for whatever use they might make. Please note that they were my attempt to synthesize such consensus as now exists about this matter, and there are nuances (though not major points) in which they may not reflect my exact personal views.

One of the arbitrators had placed these proposals into the proposed decision in the case for arbitrator voting, where they had attracted a bit of support, but they were later removed from the voting on the ground that they would constitute "legislation" beyond ArbCom's purview. I'm glad to post the proposals here for further discussion. As posted to the ArbCom case, they read:


 * (A) Links to an external web page that (1) reveals information regarding the identity of a Wikipedia editor who chooses to edit anonymously and whose real-life identity is not generally known (where "generally known" means the identity has been released by the editor or published by reliable sources), (2) expressly or implicitly calls for any editor to be harassed, or (3) contains defamatory or exceptionally offensive material about a specific Wikipedia editor, are prohibited. Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to 3RR.


 * (B) Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in "outing" or harassment of Wikipedia users, but where the link is not to the specific web page containing the offending material, are discouraged. In general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content in any event. Links to such sites should be used, if at all, only where including the link contributes substantially to an article or discussion, and where no other citation for the same information could reasonably be substituted without loss of content or comprehension.


 * (C) Otherwise appropriate links to websites that do not generally engage in "outing" or harassment generally should not be removed because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand, such links should not be added for an illegitimate purpose, such as the harassment of any editor.


 * (D) Harassment policy affects only web pages or websites that engage in "outing", call for editors to be harassed, or contain grossly offensive content about specific editors. It has no application to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), tease our editors without crossing the line into harassment, or the like, none of which are tantamount to outing or harassment.


 * (E) In deciding what links should be included in Wikipedia, the effect of including such links on our editors is a legitimate factor to be considered in the exercise of editorial discretion.


 * (F) A reasonable policy formulated by the community in connection with the issue of links to external sites engaged in harassment would supersede previous Arbitration Committee decisions on the subject.

Also, here is my attempt to summarize what I believe is the current state of community consensus (or non-consensus) on these issues:


 * General agreement (not unanimous, but probably enough for consensus) that there should be no links directly to attack/outing/harassment pages, with some reasonable definition of what that term means;
 * General agreement (same caveat) that where a site contains only an isolated dispute with a wikipedian, links to other pages in the site need not be removed;
 * I have not noted any disagreement as yet with my suggestion (I think this was the novel element of my proposal) that where a site contains attack/outing pages (beyond the isolated dispute situation), links to other pages within that site should be disfavored, but not prohibited outright; the test I proposed was whether the site contains information material to an article or discussion and no other source for the same information could reasonably be substituted; this is new ground that should be discussed;
 * There is still strong disagreement on whether there remain a relatively small handful of sites (the canonical example is the site that was at issue in the original MONGO case) so problematic that no links to them should be permitted at all.

Comments most welcome. Newyorkbrad 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

slightly disappointing
the material i removed per the above section (info cull) has been returned as useful, without addressing the issues raised above (instruction creep) or discussion / notification here. This is a little disappointing.

My feeling remains that the information returned is a net negative for the policy. Privatemusings 06:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We can make a compromise. Some of the information is useful; for example, I like the part specifying that we won't remove links to mere criticism, that's important. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You've done an amazing job, even though it's doomed to fail. For a start, I'd suggest drawing a thick line between unreliable, unnotable sites, which are crap, and notable sites.  To emphasize the relevant policies, unnotable sites are forbidden in articles and discouraged in discussions.  The other suggestion is to discriminate between articles, where BLP applies, and discussions, where NPA applies.  The standards are pretty different, so they should be completely separated.


 * You could just make a list of bad sites, and say how they must or must not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.125.145 (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Discouraged in articles reword etc.
I've culled some of the info. previously discussed to attempt to stimulate discussion here.
 * Re : Discouraged in artcles vs. discouraged - I believe these links should be discouraged universally
 * Re : The final sentence mentioning allowing certain links on talk pages - unnecessary as instruction creep.

With a growing collection of erstwhile editors, i see some hope that we may achieve something here. Privatemusings 22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Definie improvements. Good job. --Alecmconroy 23:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside of article space
Looking over the two sections that deal with such links outside of article space, they seem a little hard to follow and unwieldy:


 * Links to calls for harassment which do not violate editors' privacy and are not clearly hurtful may be included in discussions about them on talk and project pages, but not for other purposes or in articles. Removal of such links from talk or project page discussions about them is discouraged, especially if they can help to contain their impact (e.g., with semi-protection.) In this case, editors should follow the usual talk page guidelines unless such links are being included to harass or disturb.


 * Politely raising good-faith concerns based on information found within external harassment is not considered harassment. Repeating, linking to, or including additional rude or hurtful statements when raising such concerns is harassment and is forbidden. Repeating, linking to, or adding private personal information is also forbidden unless doing so is unavoidably necessary to explain the concerns. Violations may be removed without the restriction of the three-revert rule, and violators may be blocked.

I think we can simplify these down to two basic principles:


 * Don't attack or harass, period. Inserting links for the purposes of attack/harassment is grounds for being blocked.
 * Good-faith discussion of external harassment is not forbidden, but linking to external harassment is discouraged unless doing so is truly necessary.

Which could be expanded into the following text:


 * Linking to external harassment for the purposes of attacking or harassing other editors is unacceptable and forbidden. Engaging in personal attacks or harassment can be grounds for blocking.
 * Politely raising good-faith concerns based on information found within external harassment is not considered harassment. Linking to controversial pages are discouraged unless doing so is unavoidably necessary.

Thoughts? --Alecmconroy 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very good, so I've put it in. - Good work, Alec. Privatemusings 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reporting privacy violations
Shouldn't this give a more private option for reporting privacy violations than AN/I? If something really is a serious privacy violation, the victim might not wish to call more public attention to it by posting publicly about it, so giving some other contact possibility (e-mail?) might be helpful. *Dan T.* 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Added info abnout WP:OTRS - but i'm not a big fan of the final para.s generally. This should help. Privatemusings 00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources vs experts

 * If a web site or page discussing Wikipedia or its editors meets the reliable source criteria, then it is considered criticism and not harassment, even if it includes statements or quotations that are hurtful or that violate the personal privacy of Wikipedia editors.

Blogs and other self-published websites are not generally considered reliable sources, however recognized experts are considered reliable when commenting in their field of expertise, regardless of the venue. Becuase that is a narrow exemption and because the sites themselves are not considered reliable, I think we need to clarify the difference. Self-published sites that engage in harassment should probably not be linked to, regardless of the expertise of one of the contributors. Otherwise that gives all experts on any topic free rein to harass Wikipedia editors, and permits links to unreliable sources that host harassment so long as an expert has posted anywhere on it. I propose this change:


 * If a web site or page discussing Wikipedia or its editors meets the reliable source criteria, then it is considered criticism and not harassment, even if it includes statements or quotations that are hurtful or that violate the personal privacy of Wikipedia editors. 

That will make it clear that the website as a whole must meet our guidelines for reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the distinction as necessary; a site that's reliable only in a limited field is valid to link to within the context of that field and not elsewhere; the presence or absence of Wikipedia "attacks" is irrelevant to this. *Dan T.* 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any danger in making the unnecessary distinction? - I'm inclinded to agree with Will that this small 'loophole' should be closed. Privatemusings 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm not sure how that would work. One website might host both reliable and unreliable sources. A NYT fact-piece, and NYT opinion piece, and an NYT Forum post all appear on the same website, but have very different levels of reliabilities. --Alecmconroy 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear; If a recognized expert takes umbrage at an editor and writes reams of vitriolic abuse, links to that abuse should not be defended as being untouchable under the 'reliable source' criteria - I'm not 100% certain that we've covered this appropriately. Privatemusings 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think there's got to be some wording that will get us what we want. What about "If a source meets the reliable source criteria-"-  allowing us a more flexible definition of "source".  In some cases, one author is the source for an entire website.  In other cases, dozens of different authors might be on one domain name.          An expert might qualify as a reliable source when discussing their area of expertise, but not qualify as a reliable source when discussing the identities of wikipedia editors, for example.   --Alecmconroy 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or "if the link is to a reliable source" --Alecmconroy 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just thinking aloud-- maybe the answer is to draw a clearer distinctions between "inside article space" and "outside article space". Inside article space, the main issues are reliability and notability.  Outside article space, the main issues are Civility, NPA, and HARASS.  If you look at how we cover other forms and harassment-- racism for example, we make a strong distinction.  Articles link to racist content and quote racist content when it's notable, but we would never permit such racial hatred outside of article space. --Alecmconroy 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we definitely need to close that loophole somehow. Current wording basically reads that if a source is reliable for ANYTHING, it's reliable for EVERYTHING, which isn't what we want it to mean.  --Alecmconroy 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A hypothetical case would be an expert posting to a forum. The presence of the expert doesn't make a forum reliable as a whole. A portion of this problem traces back to the lack of clarity in the reliable sources guideline, but we shouldn't allow that vagueness to compromise this proposal. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having thought all this over, I think we can solve the problem by speaking more in terms of "principles" than "rules".  We can point out that harassment usually comes from non-notable, unreliable sources.  We can observe, for example, that a major news organization is almost certainly NOT engaging in harassment.  This gets the point across, without going so far as to make "rules" about it.  No hard and fast rules, no loopholes to hard and fast rules. See below. --Alecmconroy 09:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump
I have posted a notice at the policy pump in an attempt to encourage as many editors as possible to contribute here. Welcome all, and thanks for coming. Privatemusings 06:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Four principles
As always, I'm trying to distill these down to the bare essentials-- the fewest number of axioms needed. Here's another shot at this:


 * Within articles: links of no encyclopedia value are prohibited.  Links of encyclopedia value are permitted, but great caution should be exercised.
 * Within discussion: Using links as a tool to attack or harasss is prohibited.  Using links for good-faith discussion permitted, but great caution should be exercised.

Which can be expanded to:


 * Within articles
 * Linking to external harassment of no encyclopedic value is prohibited. Deliberate addition of such links is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to the three-revert rule.
 * Linking to sites containing harassment for valid encyclopedia reasons should be done only with caution, because such sites typically do not meet the criteria for reliable sources.


 * Within discussions
 * Linking to external harassment for the purposes of attacking or harassing other editors is unacceptable and forbidden. Engaging in personal attacks or harassment can be grounds for blocking.
 * Truly good-faith discussion of external harassment may, in some cases, be necessary. Politely raising good-faith concerns based on information found within external harassment is not, in itself, harassment. Linking to external harassment during such discussions is discouraged unless doing so is unavoidably necessary.

I _think_ these four basically cover it. I prefer to keep things "general" and flexible, rather than trying to spell out a complex set of rules. We've bumped into that as we've tried to define precisely how reliability should factor in, for example. We get into a similar situation trying to define exactly when and where links can be purged from discussions.

Maybe better to keep it simple and general. --Alecmconroy 08:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if we went with these four principles, the extra text doesn't need to be deleted, as much as moved into general explanatory material above and below. The extra points about what is and is not harasssment could, for example, be included in the Scope section.
 * Harassment is not mere criticism. Material that simply offers criticism of Wikipedia or its editors, or even sarcastic teasing and taunting.
 * Harassment is a bad-faith attempt to intimidate. Good-faith attempts at legitimate criticism are not harassment.
 * Harassment typically comes from speakers who are extremist, unreliable and non-notable. Major news organizations, for example, are extremely unlikely to engage in actual harassment.
 * Harassment is typically routine and systemic. An isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor generally does not constitute harassment, except in circumstances of extreme harassment or violation of privacy.

--Alecmconroy 09:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of importance
Once again, I think that intention should be at the top of the list (if we rank them by importance at all), not the bottom. However, it should also be said that if the intent of the user linking it is to harass, it should still be removed; even if the intent of the author of the material is not harassment. —Random832 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So what about the scenarios?
1) User is accused (in a talk page) of posting on an attack site with the implication that this makes the user untrustworthy. User tries to defend himself by giving a link to the attack site showing what he actually posted. 2) A policy about attack sites is being discussed. Someone wants to post a link to show how such sites may be useful, or even to show how someone else discussing the policy has taken things from the attack site out of context.

In these scenarios, would the proposed policy allow the link?

(The scenarios can happen even when the site routinely engages in attacks, so just saying that it's okay if the site doesn't routinely engage in attacks doesn't solve the problem.)

Ken Arromdee 17:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

to be brief; in 1) The link is allowed as 'good faith', but is discouraged, and I would certainly recommend to that editor that she remove that link. It probably won't help the situation. 2) again permissible under 'good faith' (with an outside chance of being defensible as 'encyclopedic purpose' if it really serves the project). Again though, I'd preach caution - there are very few points that can't be made clearly without a link, which is the course of action i'd (and the policy) prefer. Privatemusings 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's some unfairness to a situation where opponents of the sites in question are free to smear the sites and the people who post there all they want, but anybody trying to defend them is hamstrung by being either prohibited or at least discouraged from linking there to show how there is some useful and constructive content there. *Dan T.* 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where an editor has a valid reason to post (ie. a particular site is being smeared, and that editor wishes to rebuff the smear), a link to useful material would be welcome (as in, discouraged, but because of the relevance to the discussion at hand, suitable.) The discouragement is important as a useful net limiter of harm - perhaps you disagree that it would function thus? Privatemusings 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It hasn't functioned thus so far (in fact, the two scenarios have actually happened). Opponents of attack sites are so strict about it and so unwilling to make exceptions that "discouraged" always ends up being treated as "never allowed" or at least "never allowed unless you convince me personally". Ken Arromdee 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I may add that allowing links "in good faith" doesn't work either. What happens is that someone puts up the link in good faith, then a BADSITES proponent removes it and says "you put that link up in good faith, so I'm just going to remove it and warn you.  But now that I've warned you about it, any further attempts by you to put the link back will no longer be in good faith".  Ken Arromdee 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I might hope that the solution is to somehow be clear that we're not creating an addition exemption to 3RR beyond the exceptions already provided (for example, to revert vandalism or under BLP). I think part of what has exacerbated the problems is the idea that it doesn't qualify as a content dispute.   Rather than discussion and consensus, there's instead been a lot of decision-quoting and block-threatening.  Recognizing the bulk of these for what they are-- legitimate content disputes between respected editors, should go a long way to stop the "this is against the rules, period, end of discussion" and lead back to "let's talk about it and form a consensus on whether this particular link is helpful or not".  --Alecmconroy 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy vs arbcom
Should language to the effect of "(proposed) Principle #15 in the "Attack Sites" arbitration is hereby vacated." be added to this proposed policy? Or, if not that wording, at least something to clarify that consensus-based policy prevails over arbcom "principles" in case of a conflict, per foundation issue #3. —Random832 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're trying to repeal a decision point before it even passes? *Dan T.* 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point Random, but there's no rush - pretty much everyone agrees that a policy with consensus is the best solution to this thorny issue. Privatemusings 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole mess got STARTED because Arbcom enacted an exception to 3RR. I think that, if any "policies" are passed, any policy about this needs to specifically address them 'by name' or they will become a point of contention. —Random832 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

re : scope
isn't teasing and taunting fundamentally intended to hurt and embarrass? Unfortunately that makes our scope para. illogical. Another on the list of things to do. Privatemusings 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
Another dimension I'd like to see added is relevance. For example, linking to Wikipedia Review from an article about its creator is virtually mandatory, whereas linking to it from an article about a type of bird because it mentions some editor's comments about birds is silly. This is generally used to evaluate links and factors into the whole "how useful is this link, independent of its harassment value?" question. Dcoetzee 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

outing versus WP:COI
There needs to be some exception to "outing" when it involves WP:Conflict of interest concerns. Obviously, that whole policy has no meaning if editors have perfect anonymity, and though outing-for-the-sake-of-outing is problematic, it's actually a benefit to the project when it is brought to our attention that an editor is actively engaging in editing articles in which they have a conflict of interest. Thoughts? -- 67.98.206.2 14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell issue
"Links that serve the encyclopedia should not be removed under any circumstances" is inaccurate, no? It's a matter of editorial discretion what links go in and out of an article. I think the intention is that such links should not be removed on the grounds of this (proposed) policy. Milto LOL pia 02:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think "under any circumstances" is too absolutist a statement to be completely valid under all circumstances. It ought to be avoided. *Dan T.* 03:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. Maybe "should not be removed due to this policy" or maybe just dropping the "under any circumstances". --Alecmconroy 03:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest dropping the entire sentence. "Serve the encyclopedia" is not a term used anywhere in this proposal or elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the change to "on these grounds" is really good. --Alecmconroy 05:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the definition of "serve the encyclopedia"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd interpet "serve the encyclopedia" as a phrase like "good-faith". Coming here and adding links to external harassment that has no business being in our articles or our discussion isn't welcome.  Adding links that improve the encyclopedia is welcome.  --Alecmconroy 06:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

'Serve the encylcopedia' is intended as a synonym of 'encyclopedic purpose', or to put it terms of process, meeting all relevant policies and guidelines (consensus, notability etc.).

It was intentionally a strong statement, and i don't believe it works as well watered down. Although the position is absolutist, it is only absolutist in that if something is good (has encylopedic purpose / serves the encyclopedia) then we absolutely won't tolerate its removal. MichaelMoore.com is a good specific example here.

The strong wording also balances well with the first sentence 'may not be posted' and 'will be removed'. Privatemusings 07:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's too strong and too vague. It doesn't say that the links even have to be to reliable sources, and it leaves open to interpretation what "serves" the project. I'm sure folks could make arguments that almost any site serves the project in some way, even WikipediaWatch or WikipediaReview. Leaving that exemption in there pretty much makes this policy a dead letter. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You say that like it's a bad thing... :-)  OK, I guess I agree that "serves" is rather vague... does it mean something similar to the book title "To Serve Man" from a science fiction story that became a Twilight Zone episode... which turned out to be a cookbook? *Dan T.* 23:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that came to mind too, as an indication of how vague the term "serve" can be. With this sentence in place, what behavior would this policy actually govern that other policies don't already cover? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My thought is that, if you read the other policies closely, there isn't ANY behavior that needs to be governed that isn't already covered by other policies. Bad faith edits mean to harass are already covered as vandalism or harassment or both.  Unreliable sources already shouldn't be cited.  etc.  The tragedy of the whole "attack sites" issue is that really, we already had to tools to deal with them in the first place, but instead we created new tools that were too difficult to use properly. --Alecmconroy 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that folks here are drafting a useless policy? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all! For one, I'm not the drafter of this policy-- I've only shouted suggestions from the sidelines, so my opinions aren't the one you should look to.
 * Secondly-- not useless at all. Just because a policy is completely consistent with and a logical consequence of our other policies, that doesn't make it useless.  No Personal Attacks is a logical consequence of WP:CIVIL, but it's still helpful for us to have both policies for clarity.  --Alecmconroy 00:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So what purpose does this proposed policy serve, with the exemption that links to any site that "serves" the purpose of the encyclopedia is any fashion whatsoever may not be removed? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose is to help get consensus on when it's not okay to link to stuff and when it is. Right now, we've been arguing about this for over a year.  BADSITES and it's incarnations doesn't have consensus, it's not gonna get consensus.  But some parts of it DO have consensus.  Part like "Don't link for the purposes of harassing", and "Try not to link in discussions if you can help it" and "Don't link to unreliable, non-notable sites".  By spelling those parts of BADSITES out that do have consensus, but excluding those parts of BADSITES that are ultra-controversial, we can create a reasonable policy that will hopefully help everyone understand those instances where linking is or is not forbidden by consensus.  --Alecmconroy 02:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As the proposal is now written, linking for the purpose of harassment would be allowed if the link serves some purpose. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it serves some valuable encyclopedia purpose, why do you think its purpose is for harassment? If it really and truly improves the encyclopedia-- why would we want to delete it?  --Alecmconroy 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Valuable encyclopedia purpose": I don't think we have a working definition for that term yet.
 * If we can't source material properly we shouldn't include it, instead of lowering our standards to allow for poorly-sourced assertions. (We've all seen talk page arguments like: "BSpears.forum is the only site with postings on her latest baby formula. We've gotta use it!" or ""AryanNation.com is a neutral source for the global Zionist plot!") We pick and choose between reliable and unreliable sources all day long. A site that is used or intended for harassment of Wikipedia editors is obviously non-neutral, and is probably self-published or a forum. Those are sources we'd only accepts under exemptions already. If we simply remove the exceptional acceptance of otherwise unreliable sources we'd solve most of the problem without blocking use of sources like the New Yorker. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. --Alecmconroy 11:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new nutshell. It certainly doesn't match the title: we must balance conflict of interest with linking to harassment sites? I think we need to balance the COI benefits of outing, but not harassment. Milto LOL pia 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think the new nutshell works as well as the old one did. The old nutshell was self-evident, this one is less obviously-true, and a seems a tad combative. --Alecmconroy 08:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, as long as I'm griping I don't see any need to balance the feelings of those who get upset over links with neutrality an WP:ENC. It sounds like we're compromising the most important foundationary (?) principles with that.  Milto LOL pia 08:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole question of "To what extent should we consider the effects our articles have on people" is an interesting dilemma. I tend to think it's best to "just write an objective encyclopedia" as best we can, and let the chips fall where they may.  But I'm ambivalent and uncertain about that, not certain like I usually am in these kinds of debates.


 * In any case, it's definitely clear to me that the person on the street who DOESN'T edit wikipedia should have just as much value and worth in our eyes as a Wikipedia editor-- so there's no call for any additional balancing beyond what would be provided by BLP. --Alecmconroy 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If "there's no call for any additional balancing beyond what would be provided by BLP" then this proposal should not become a policy or a guideline. "Additional balancing beyond what would be provided by BLP" is in fact the essence of what some people are asking for and editing to achieve. I see this proposal as limiting what people are already doing rather than mandating any new efforts. WAS 4.250 08:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just one voice, and I'm trying to keep somewhat of a "hands-off" approach to editing this policy so it can represent consensus better than my own personal view does. So, keep in mind when I say we don't need anything beyond BLP, that's just my view, not necessarily a true summary of this policy.
 * Once upon a time, I might have agreed that an additional policy on this was unnecessary, and all that was necessary was links to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:EL. The project seemed to get along just fine with only those for a long time.  But after the incorporation of BADSITES into NPA, it seems like it might be helpful to explicitly state what parts do have consensus-- even if they are logical consequences of other policies. --Alecmconroy 10:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

PrivateMusings, our authorial guardian angel, do you have a preference of the old nutshell wording vs "We must balance compassion for those who feel a link is a thorn in their side with Wikipedia's need for open discussion, neutral content, and accurate archives."? --Alecmconroy 06:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"try to hurt" in scope
I hate to get all anti-Dr. Phil here, but this wording is a little too subjective for me -- I mean we're talking "feelings" here and all. Are we looking for something more along the lines of "disdain" or "insult" or something? -- 146.115.58.152 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources
To get nit-picky, The following was added: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may not be used as sources in articles involving claims about third parties."

I don't know if that's a fair paraphrase of WP:V. That paraphrase sort implies such sources can't be sources ANYWHERE in articles that involve claims about third parties. My own reading is that "questionable, self-published sources can't be used AS VERIFICATION for claims.

To use a stupid example: " Hitler was a Nazi [Reliable History Site]. Weird Al, a mental patient, once joked that he has Hitler's brain alive in a jar.[Weird Al's personal site]" might be okay, since Weird Al's site is just used as a source for Weird Al's statement. But saying "Hitler was a Nazi [Weird Al's personal site]" wouldn't be okay, because it's a claim about Hitler, not Weird Al.

(please, look beyond the stupid example, I don't have time to think up a better one :) Obviously, Weird Al's jokes about Hitler's Brain would never have enough notability to merit inclusion, so-- just pretend I came up with an example that actually worked. )

That said-- I think the caution about questionable sources merits a mention. Maybe we could tweak the wording to something like "In particular, self-published and questionable sources should be used only with caution, see WP:V and WP:RS. --Alecmconroy 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a paraphrase, it's amost a direct quote. I'm drafting language to say that we shouldn't link to self-published websites that harass Wikipedia editors. Since we only use self-published sites as sources under exceptional circumstances, we simply need to modify those exceptions a bit to encompass the non-harassment policy.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the exact quote: Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as...it does not involve claims about third parties. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See what others think, but I think the minor change in wording and lack of context subtly changes the meaning a little.  I interpret whole section to mean that self-published sources may be used to verify that an author truly said something, but not to verify that the author's claim is actually true.


 * OKAY: Adam has published a site claiming that Bill is a liar [Adam's site]
 * Not Okay: Bill is a liar  [Adam's site]


 * Obviously, all the caveats apply. Reliable secondary sources are preferred.  NPOV, Notability, and BLP must be complied with, etc. --Alecmconroy 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only change in the WP:V text was from the form "may be used except in cases ...B..." to "may not be used in case B." I don't see how doing so changes the meaning. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Material from self-published and questionable sources may not be used as sources in articles involving claims about third parties.
 * Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as...it does not involve claims about third parties.
 * Do those have significantly different meanings? You called it "nit-picky" above. Is this really a substantial issue? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Do you think the statement is a "change" in policy, or just a "see also"? It _sounds_ like you're trying to construct a new blanket prohibition of all harassment links, regardless of notability.  I.e., Badsites and NPA#EL, only this time using RS.


 * Suppose tommorrow, ED because super famous. Say one of their editors turns out to have kidnapped the lindberg baby.  Suddenly, everyone knows about ED, and we have an article on ED.   In this hypothetical-- do we link or not?


 * Current policy say we link. Do you think your wording would change that, if it were adopted? --Alecmconroy 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow you. Which wording are you talking about? The wording I quoted above is already policy, so adding it to this proposal changes exactly nothing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, see what others think. That text isn't a direct quote-- it changes the wording a little, and doesn't quote the whole context.  I think that serves to make it CHANGE policy just a little bit-- but maybe that's just me.


 * In any case, I think we're far better off just noting that harasses are unlikely to be reliable sources, and leaving it at that. General principles are good-- rules are bad.  --Alecmconroy 08:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rules are good when clear boundaries are required, as with our core polcies and others like 3RR. I think we should establish a clear policy on what constitutes a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Application

 * So this would apply to editors with articles? -- 67.98.206.2 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that existing policies consider self-published sources to be usable only in very narrow circumstances, and never about 3rd-parties. I'm proposing that we further narrow the use of self-published sources. If a person is actively harasing Wikipedia editors then he is likely to be biased and have a conflict of interest.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. Notable sites are allowed to be biased, opinionated, and to have conflicts of interests.  Only _our_ articles are supposed to be neutral, unopinionated, and unconflicted-- we may have a legitimate need to quote from, and make reference to, any manner of biased/conflicted/opinionated sources if they're sufficiently notable.  It's fine to include self-published as a sign of caution, but you're not going to be leverage it into an outright prohibition.  For example, a President of the United States (pick any one you don't trust) gives a speech.  He's biased, he's got conflicts of interest, and many of his assertions cannot be taken as verified facts based on his word alone.  His speech IS self-published.  But we're still gonna make reference to it, because regardless of the reliability of a source, it's notability demands coverage.


 * I think we're best off saying that true harassers are unlikely to meet the criteria for reliable sources, and should only be cited with caution. Any more legalistic than than and the exceptions become more numerous the original problem.  Besides-- isn't the observation that "Harasses probably aren't reliable sources, and citing them is dangerous" plenty to rid us of anyone trying to genuinely cite harasses as actual sources of facts?  I mean, I can't imagine anyone in this debate actually trying to claim something in an article is verified because of ED's sayso.  --Alecmconroy 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict; but yeah, what Alec said!) We already have WP:BLP and WP:V for article space. I don't think suggesting that what is written on talk pages needs to be reliably sourced is a good idea. Though, er... I don't have a source for that! So, wait, do I really think that? Yes, at least I hope so. We can't stick our heads in the sand and willfully ignore criticism whatever the source. If it's "harassment" which I find ill defined that's saying enough. -- 67.98.206.2 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The bias I mentioned isn't run of the mill political bias, it's bias concerning Wikipedia itself. If the President of the U.S. set up a blog and used it to attack Wikipedia editors then that would be newsworthy so we could find independent news sources to cover it. Even in that extreme case we woulnd't need to link directly to the unreliable, self-published site. An individual who engages in harassing Wikipedia editors by doing things like publishing personal information on his website has a conflict of interest regarding this project that goes beyond mere criticism. Self-published sources are already barred from being used in most cases. Self-published sources with COIs should always be barred. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're somehow discussing a person's attitudes TOWARDS Wikipedia, then sure, if they seem unreliable, we might not use them as a source to verify facts about Wikipedia. But if we're just talking about, say, Michael Moore's views on Healthcare-- his views about wikipedia don't really matter. --Alecmconroy 23:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Moore's views on healthcare are well represented in conventionally-published sources, so it isn't necessary to use his self-published material for summarizing notable information about him or his opinions. However it would be too conflicted to use as a source a website which is actively trying to intimidate Wikipedia editors. If they are trying to influence WP editors then it is reasonable to assume that they may also seek to influence WP articles. If Michael Moore became a WP editor and then used his blog to harass other editors we should not consider that blog to be a reliable source on any topic. He's free, within the limits of the law and his own conscious, to harass editors as much as he likes. But doing so makes his self-published views less reliable. If he says something notable on his blog it'll be reported elsewhere so sourcing isn't an issue. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Our commitment to NPOV means that we shouldn't treat bias towards Wikipedia itself any different from any other sort of bias; doing this makes us seem petty and vindictive. *Dan T.* 00:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you think being petty and vindictive is bad, perhaps because it would make us look less reliable to the readers. Self-published sites that engage in external harassment of WP editors are being petty and vindictive, which is part of what makes them less reliable. People who engage in petty and vindictive behavior towards encyclopedia editors are not good sources for that encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless Michael Moore's attitudes towards Wikipedia are notable enough to cover in the article, they have no bearing on how our articles covers him. If he harasses people in general, we may find him untrustworthy-- but not unmentionable.  --Alecmconroy 08:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, if he harasses people, WP editors in particular, on his self-published website then we won't use that site as a reliable source. It's really pretty simple. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? His self-published website may or may not be a reliable source regarding the veracity of his opinions, but it is the original reliable source on the internet of his opinions. We may not quote from it directly, but it is ridiculous to consider not linking to it as a primary reference. LessHeard vanU 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:V discourages use of primary sources. If the opinions are notable they'll be referred to in 3rd party sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying we link to the site for the opinions contained, per WP:V, but because it is the source of the quotes regarding the opinions contained there. Consider it this way, we do not link to a site with the image of the Mona Lisa because it is entitled "The Most Famous Painting In The World", but because it shows the picture that reliable third parties have described as "The Most Famous Painting In The World", which we quote. It might be a primary source for the quote, but it is not the one we use as a reference - but we link as it is the referenced image for the cite. LessHeard vanU 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Will's line of argument is way off the rails here, defining harassment so broadly as so as to substantially infringe on free speech. Have you read some of the killer reviews published by, say, The New Yorker? There was one that was particluarly memorable, of the movie Showgirls, that was really entertainingly over the top scathing.

Wikipedians simply should not be exempted from having their work here reviewed, and mainstream reviewing includes a tradition of scathing reviews.

I publish a review magazine and have for 20 years, and for the most part we don't publish that kind of review because we feel that people's likes tend to be more interesting that their dislikes. But there is a long and honorabe tradition of writing and publishing very very negative reviews that entertain the reader at the expense of the review subject. This cannot simply be attributed to pettiness and vindictiveness in order to rid Wikipedia of public scrutiny. --Pleasantville 10:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've mistaken my proposal. It would only affect self-published sites. Those are already allowed only for sources about themselves and for topics about which the source is a previously published authority. Every other use of self-published sources is already prohibited. Further, this isn't about criticism. It's about harassment.
 * Let's say you, a WP editor, are editing an article on some petty criminal. And say that subject's supporters creates a website mostly dedicated to harassing you, perhaps by posting crudely altered photographs of you along with your home and work numbers, etc. Should we add to the article a prominent link to the site as a source for the devotion of the criminal's supporters? I don't think we should, because I think that when a potential source tries to affect Wikipeida articles by harassing Wikipedia editors it ceases to be a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The example you give is of a non-notable, non-reliable site-- the strawman we can't get rid of. The debate is over NOTABLE sites that allegedly contain harassment. Michael Moore was always notable enough to merit linking to-- for years we linked to him.  IF he and I get into a fight, and he attacks me-- I don't get to drag Wikipedia into the mess by taking my fight here and defacing his article. --Alecmconroy 11:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am disturbed by the use of Michael Moore as an example. He is a wellknown social critic and so self-publication is irrelevant. If he has criticisms of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, WP should just take its lumps like any other publisher or publication.


 * Wikipedia as a whole has a COI when it attempts to suppress criticism of itself. And in publishing in general it is considered unethical to try to suppress negative reviewing. --Pleasantville 11:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I should add, Will, that for me your example is non-hypothetical. One of the sites linked to from the article on Jack Idema, Rogue Radio Live, contains a photoshopped image of me and my 9 year-old son, labelling us terrorists and trailer trash. It is featured on the site's front page where it has been for some time. There is further harasment of me further in the site in the Internet radio shows themselves, including false claims that I performed a specific sex act on a specific person in a hotel room.


 * I have discussed the matter with the FBI and multiple law enforcement agencies and with Idema's ISP. When it was posted, Idema was in jail for kidnapping and torture. One of his supporters, Lynn Thomas, has the blog Caosblog.com which is also linked to from the Idema entry. Her harassment of me via her site includes specific attacks on my editing of Wikipedia and being the first one to post the image that is on Idema's site, which she removed when I contacted her ISP and called her local cops. Both she and Idema have also made legal threats. I am not unaware of the experience of being harassed.


 * The idea that anything could be done via WIkipedia to ammeliorate my Idema situation is hard to fathom. Yes, sure, I could run in and delink these pages. The only benefit to me would be a small mean satisfaction. The risk is giving them further amunition because they could claim I deleted their links from WP or caused them to be deleted. There would be no useful purpose served, If these pages were being used as references on me, Kathryn Cramer, yes, sure their links shoud be deleted. But in this very concrete example of actual harassment by a real criminal, I just don't see the purpose of Will's stance. Deleting the links would simply be an empty gesture. --Pleasantville 12:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are a stronger person than many. Other people in your circumstance may not react so stoically, and may be put off from editing the project further. The issue of how to handle self-published sites that harass WP ediotrs is important, so as to avoid inflaming disputes. That's one of the matters we should be discussing here. Regarding Michael Moore, self-published sites are inherently unreliable. They should only be allowed in narrow cicrcumstances. The fact that the owner is a celebrity or even an academic does not grant them automatic reliability. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Self-published sites (i.e. pretty much the whole internet) are often reliable for lots of things. We shouldn't be citing them blindly, but we shouldn't forbid them either.  And unreliable but highly notable sites are linked just based on their notability.


 * In the end, I haven't seen a single case of a site of a non-notable, unreliable site where we needed a new special rule in order to keep it out of the encyclopedia. Not one.  Saying "Don't link to unreliable, non-notable sites" really covers it.  We're trying to fix a problem (links to non-notable, unreliable harassment in articles) that doesn't exist.  --Alecmconroy 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're saying that harassment of Wikipedia editors isn't a problem? It is certainly perceived to be a problem by those who are harassed. If you think that nothing needs to be done about it then please allow those who do think it's a problem to address it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, BADSITES and NPA#EL are not policy and are not being enforced. What's the problem?  What article is it that's linking to non-notable, unreliable harassment?  --Alecmconroy 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA is indeed a policy, one of the most important. Because it is there we don't have links to certain sites that eactively harass WP editors. Harassment of Wikipedia editors is indeed a problem, otherwise the ArbCom would not have taken the case. If you don't think there's a problem then go on about your business and let those who recognize the problem address it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again. Right now, BADSITES and NPA#EL are not policy and are not being enforced.  What's the problem?  What article is it that's linking to non-notable, unreliable harassment????  If you can't come up with one, you shouldn't be constructing new policy to forbid a link that doesn't even exist.


 * Or, I'll say it differently-- what article currently NEEDS to link to a reliable/notable source but has had its link purged because someone is under the incorrect assumption that NPA#EL is policy? Tell me, and if I agree with your assessment that such a link is necessary to the article and helpful to the encyclopedia, I'll be happy to add it back, since NPA#EL has been rejected.  --Alecmconroy 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Links to ED have been removed, based on the policy now known as NPA#EL. If those links were restored then they would be removed again, pursuant to NPA#EL. NPA#EL has not been rejected. It could certainly use a re-write, which is what we're trying to do.
 * Do we agree that there are no reliable self-published sources that engage in harassment of Wikipedia editors? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And what article is it that needs to link to ED but can't because of NPA#EL? None.  Exactly.  BADSITE's only real ability would be to purge reliable or notable sources that are needed by our articles.  Unreliable, non-notable, unnecessary links are deleted already. --Alecmconroy 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, NPA isn't policy. You see the big tag, no? -- 67.98.206.2 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "BADSITES" doesn't exist. Constant references to it don't further the discussion. We're here to draft "Linking to external harassment". Regarding ED, what's to prevent someone from adding ED as an external link or as a source for itself? I agree that it is not a reliable source for anything, and we should have a policy which clarifies that so there's no confusion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BADSITES, when used by me anyway, is a metaname for all the "delete all links to attack sites" proposals. "what's to prevent someone from adding ED as an external link or as a source for itself"?  Well, it's certainly not BADSITES that's preventing it, since no such policy has gained consensus.  Presumably, the fact that it's unreliable and non-notable.  If the founder of ED killed 200 people tomorrow and had his pictures on the cover of every newspaper in the world, we'd immediately be covering him and his site.  --Alecmconroy 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if there should happen to be some place and time whereby ED is actually a legitimate link to add, then what would be the problem with adding it? Are you contemplating creating a bill of attainder against it in order to vindictively punish it by withholding all possibility of linking to it even if all other policies don't stand in the way? *Dan T.* 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you confusingly mix up BADSITES, which was rejected long ago, with current proposals? That seems like a very unhelpful debate technique. Would it be helpful if I came up with a "metaname" that described all variations on proposals allowing harassment? How about "PRO-HARASSMENT"? If the PRO-HARASSMENT crowd gets its way, then there would be no restricitons on linking to ED, even if they never do anything notable. If they did become notable, there'd still be no reason to link to them, IMO, as they'd still be unreliable and we could simply link to the independent press coverage. My proposal is to categorize self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia as unreliable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or label all variations on proposals allowing for link bans as PRO-CENSORSHIP. Or try to avoid applying simplistic labels and conduct a rational discussion based on facts and logic. *Dan T.* 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get why people object to the shorthand BADSITES metaname. It's not inherently controversial, and it's not a name I made up to smear the policy, it's a name the policy makers came up with.  A correct name for the family of proposals, "Mongo/Badsites/NPA#EL/MaliciousSites", is just a little too long to reasonably expect people to use.  --Alecmconroy 22:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "BADSITES" is indeed a controversial term when applied to every proposal to deal with links to external harassment. Folks who want to discuss "BADSITES" should do it at Wikipedia talk:Badsites. The policy we're drafting here is  "Linking to external harassment". That's short enough to write out. Let's confine ourselves to talking about what's actually proposed here, not about old proposals.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (deindent) Well, I think everyone understands we're not talking about the specific policy. I promise I don't use it as attempt to malign philosophical position, I don't see anything inherently negative about the name BADSITES-- It's a nice summary of the idea that "Sites that contain harassment are bad, and we shouldn't link to them".  If a better metaname presents itself and become the convention, I have no objections to it, but for the moment, it's the simplest way to refer to the concept.  I can understand that people might have preferred a different name, but that ship sailed a long time ago, and I had nothing to do with the formation of the term. --Alecmconroy 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are sustaining its use, even when the proposals are note the same as that long-rejected policy. If you want to debate BADSITES go debate it. This page is for debating WP:NPA. If you insist on using an inaccurate term to discuss present topics it's hard to believe you take the current discussion seriously.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, this pages is for discussing Linking to external harassment, but we have this discussion going on so many pages, I can never remember which one I'm on either. This policy is NOT BADSITES, and if you thought I was referring to it as such, I apologize.   NPA#EL (in its 'hard' form) however, IS BADSITES in ever respect that matters. The only difference is a copy and paste and some rewording.  --Alecmconroy 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Some call it BADSITES, when resisting the efforts of editors to purge WP of links to sites under the criteria advanced by that fallen policy, and some referred to it "as per MONGO" in reference to an ArbCom decision when attempting to remove said links. Hey, have you noticed that there is another ArbCom case where it appears that the extension of the wording of that previous decision in relation to other sites, and its adoption in the guise of NPA#EL, is likely to be deemed incorrect? Links to external harassment is already covered within the general ambit of NPA, and the language of the External Links section, derived from BADSITES/MONGO, looks set to fail. Attacks against editors is correctly forbidden, including linking to off-site attacks, but the linking to sites which also contain such attacks is not, and appears should not have been. Delinking to sites because they contain attack material, notwithstanding the benefit to WP for otherwise maintaining the link, is quite possibly the very definition of censorship. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We remove links to forums and blog routinely, because they aren't considered reliable sources or even worthwhile external links. We remove links to commercial sites ruthlessly too. Those deletions are not censorship, they are editorial control over our contents. If sites are not reliable then we shouldn't link to them. In the case of a self-published site (usually meaning either s single blogger or a forum) the same person may be engaging in the harassment as is being proposed for a reliable source. Is someone who spends their time outing Wikipedia editors likely to be a good source for an ecyclopedia article? No, he is likely to be a fringe nutcase. Is it censorship to exclude self-published fringe nutcases from the list of reliable sources? I don't think so. The deletion of unreliable links and sources improves rather than harms articles, just like removing spam does.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I specifically noted, "...notwithstanding the benefit to WP for otherwise maintaining the link..." to differentiate it from unreliable sources. NPA#EL appears to target links that are otherwise permissable under WP:V, because otherwise it is redundant to WP:V. LessHeard vanU 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about NPA#EL. The purpose of my proposal is to alter what we consider a reliable source. A self-published site that engages in active harassment of Wikipedia editors is not reliable. There are possible benefits to allowing spam links ("they provide a service for readers") but the ultimate harm ("if XYZ Co. is listed why can't ABC Co. be listed too?") outweighs those benefits. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See-- we've hit on the problem right here. "The purpose of my proposal is to alter what we consider a reliable source." We don't need to alter RS one iota, nor should we.  Noting partisan sources are usually unreliable is one thing. Changing the definitions of RS to DEFINE something, a priori, as being unreliable-- that's a different thing all together. --Alecmconroy 02:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We make a many restrictions on what qualifies as reliable. This is one more. Are you asserting that every limit on sources is a form of censorship? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that the currently existing RS policies are "content-neutral" or "NPOV". If we were to define all harassers to NEVER be reliable sources, we'd be making judgments about sources based on our personal feelings towards their content, rather than merely examining their utility in achieving WP:V.  --Alecmconroy 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we restrict sources based on their contents, notably in the case of fringe sites, and we restrict sites based on their authorship, notably in the case of self-published sites. We don't allow contentious assertions, assertions about 3rd parties, etc. By no means do we allow all sites to be regarded as reliable. So this proposal is very much in line with existing restrictions on sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AGF, NPA, and BADSITES
I notice that it's gotten quite common to speculate about the motives of people who oppose BADSITES. It seems like people genuinely are confused about why the ANTI-BADSITES crowd are so motivated, and this has led to rampant speculation that the objections to BADSITES stem form personal character flaws, a lack of compassion, or support for harassment. I've written a little manifesto in response, User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES. --Alecmconroy 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)