Jump to content


From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(English) This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.

The subject of this essay:

  • There has been a recent debate over the proposed policy on so-called "attack sites" (sometimes abbreviated as BADSITES). 1)Why are these sites considered "bad"? 2)Who decides what is bad and what is good? 3)Who has the right to censor these sites? Why?
  • It seems prudish and Orwellian of Wikipedians to just censor out certain sites that they don't like, to make it seem like the site is not there, or to make Wikipedians look infallible.
  • This censorship makes Wikipedia no longer free, and no longer an encyclopedia (Encyclopedias are not supposed to hide information).
  • Removing sites that give information about Wikipedians (these don't count as stalking unless someone followed a user around, I am talking about "attack sites" for informative purposes) makes me suspicious about Wikipedians. Like somebody is trying to hide something. I mean, I value your right to anonymity in places like chat rooms, large forums, Slashdot, et cetera, but in an encyclopedia, there should not be spies. Just incase, I support the se of Tor, but in wikis like Wikipedia, Real names build a strong sense of community. I would be more willing to trust someone with the name Linda C. MCIntyre than someone named LuckyMe1, because unless you are being stalked, or if you live in a large city and have a telephone book entry, you have no reason to hide yourself.

One day, someone thought it would be a good idea for wikipedia to censor anything that is critical of Wikipedia. Many administrators call the content of these sites "harassment". Harassment is defined as the annoyance or nagging of a person. But, since no one is being annoyed or nagged (except the people who own the "attack site"), so the "poor admins" are just complaining. I mean, it may be