I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet. On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ken Arromdee <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote:
> I'm skeptical that we should have an article. > > The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article > about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the > Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's > a loophole in the definition of neutrality that doing things which help > one side of a dispute doesn't break neutrality, simply because our > intentions are neutral--even though our effects are not. > > This brings to mind GNAA. GNAA is a troll group who intentionally gave > themselves an offensive name so that even mentioning them helped them > troll. > Wikipedia had a hard time getting rid of the article about them, because > we can't say "by using their name, we're helping their goals" in deciding > whether to have an article. It was finally deleted by stretching the > notability rules instead. > > And in a related question, I'd ask: Should we have an article "Richard Gere > gerbil rumor"? (As long as our article describes the rumor as debunked, of > course--otherwise we would be directly violating BLP.) Some of the > justifications for that and for this sound similar. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
