Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Encyclopedia Dramatica. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Bio of a living person?
Why is one of the categories on this article's talk page "Biographies of living people"? This article is not a bio of a living person.--Urban Rose 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The website itself has numerous "biographies" of real people. --clpo13(talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- So does the Dictionary of National Biography, but you don't see us putting up BLP notices there. Z00r (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just provided a reason why it might. I certainly don't care either way. --clpo13(talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, BLP has become somewhat of a "trump card" for deleting things, whether or not they are actually biographical. If an editor claims "BLP" and there is even the most tenuous connection, everyone else pretty much has to shut up. (similar to how the phrases "national security", "terrorism", and "for the children" function in US politics). Z00r (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just provided a reason why it might. I certainly don't care either way. --clpo13(talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- So does the Dictionary of National Biography, but you don't see us putting up BLP notices there. Z00r (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[deindent] Link removed with this edit. Good call in my opinion. Yes ED has some 'biographies', but our article is not a biography of a living person unless ED has achieved sentience, and even then it would fail the 'people' bit. Also, I agree about BLP being used as a filibuster. It is extremely important that we do no harm on actual biographies, but to call 'BLP! BLP!' on an article explicitly about a website seems illogical. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:28, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
Deletion history template added
In the light of the closing of the last AFD, it looks like this article is staying for good. For posterity's sake, I've added a template at the top of this Talk page containing all its previous AFDs, and if I haven't missed any, all 17(!) previous DRVs. There's something ironic about the fact that Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated to documenting internet drama, has caused such vast amounts of drama here on Wikipedia... let us hope we now have an end to it. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I can't get the top entry (the most recent) to display properly, maybe it's my browser? Other than that, well done. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia dramatica redirect
Encyclopedia dramatica is fully protected. It is a very likely typo so it should be redirected here. Not much more to say :) --Have a nice day. Running 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. I've also redirected the talk page. In the absence of any reason for editing that page, I've left the protection in place. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Challanged sources
I've moved this information from the article to the talk and request verification in the form of sources. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Material
| Material | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
| owner = Joseph Evers[citation needed] | author = Sherrod Degrippo[citation needed] |
Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Owner might be available via WHOIS, but wouldn't that be OR? I'm unclear as to the Author field, as - as far as I am aware - this site has many authors (being a wiki-style site). Does ED have a Jimbo Wales-esque founder or lead admin? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I already checked, I was going to play the whois, and cite a dated whois. You are however correct, a whois may be borderline gray area OR. The whois reports private registration, so thats a non starter. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- My 2c. A whois is "source-based research," not "original research." OR also has no gray areas that might be relevant here; the threshold is "did someone else say it first," the answer to which can only be "yes" or "no." -- Fullstop (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I already checked, I was going to play the whois, and cite a dated whois. You are however correct, a whois may be borderline gray area OR. The whois reports private registration, so thats a non starter. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- All sources I could find are blogs and (interestingly) Wikipedia talk / policy / dispute pages. The apparent founder is a (former?) Wikipedian who also goes by vinylgirl online. There is speculation that the apparent owner (who, according to stories, bought it from the founder) is a pseudonym, apocryphal, etc. It is the name of a well known academic. Normally, when someone starts a website this successful they are open about it, and if they wanted publicity they could certainly have it. Because credit for sponsoring a notorious website is a potential BLP issue we should be careful about unverified information like this (in my judgment). We could infer from this that they may intend to remain private, in which case we should respect their wishes. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, respect their wished yes. However, if a few independent, reliable sources can be found, it can be included here at the communities desire. But yes, in a void where sources can not be found, we should not list any founders, et cetera. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
original research concerns
"This popularity among the users of imageboard communities led NBC to display screenshots of Encyclopedia Dramatica and state its use as a planning hub in a televised report on Project Chanology."
Which reliable third-party source published on this topic? It didn't have a citation, so I'm placing it on the talk page for now.J Readings (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- This could probably be cited to the broadcast itself, as I presume NBC news would be considered a reliable source. Tracking down the broadcast (airdate, producer, etc) might be trickier. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think that there are two issues here. First, how is one supposed to verify vague references to a TV channel with nothing else to back it up? If I wanted to verify the information, the current sentence doesn't help me. Second, the sentence reads "the popularity among users of imageboard communities led NBC..." Really? Did NBC (or another reliable third-party source) literally say that or was that assertion the product of descriptive inference (read: original synthesis)? The point is -- assuming NBC even used ED -- it's original speculation to attribute motives that haven't been previously sourced. J Readings (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- TV programs can be cited for a variety of purposes - we even have a template for that sort of thing, {{cite episode}}. If you have the airdate, producers, reporter (for news), and network (publisher), then I don't see a problem with sourcing that statement to a television program. Some networks also have transcripts online - I know CNN has done this in the past, and NBC might - so citing the transcript might work, as well - and it would provide a link for Verification. But if we don't know when this was broadcast, I don't know that we can use it - which is a different problem than that fact being original research. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored the Chanology Material for the time being. NBC is a reliable source. However, the statement that "this popularity among users" is what lead NBC to restore screenshots is OR, SYNTH, or pure speculation. We don't know why NBC displayed screenshots. Accepting the validity of the citation on good faith, until proven otherwise, we can simply say that ED was used as a planning hub for PC, and cite it to NBC. We may decide, though, that simply referencing the network is not even a cite. We could also reference it to a video, blog, etc., that displays the Chanology campaign on ED. A primary source used this way isn't an OR problem, but without RS coverage it's hard to argue that it's relevant. If people agree that this isn't good enough to be a real source maybe we should go ahead and delete it again. Regarding the mention of the pedophile conviction - it's not a BLP question if he's convicted. It's cited to a specific program. I've restored the mention but for the sake of caution omitted the name (which isn't relevant to the story anyway if the perpetrator isn't himself notable). My understanding from the edit summaries, btw, is that pedophilia is a sexual preference / tendency / fetish that, though offensive to many, is not itself a crime. It is only when people act on that tendency that there is actual child sexual abuse. So the person was convicted for what he did (abuse), not what he thought (pedophilia). That's just a language clarification, nothing controversial. Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, television programs are used. You'll get no argument from me on that point. But the information should be no less well-documented and readily verifiable than anything else we cite. Unfortunately, that's not the case here. Also, see my point about attributing motives to others that were not explicitly stated elsewhere. That is original research. We cannot speculate as to why NBC (we're talking about mere screenshots here, correct? That means, I take it, that NBC didn't even elaborate on the ED) decides to use something versus something else. Nobody interviewed NBC to elicit what they were thinking, correct? Frankly, the insistence on mentioning the use of screenshots in the article smacks a little bit of desperation, but that's far less of an issue for me than the other two problems with that sentence. J Readings (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Accepting the validity of the citation on good faith, until proven otherwise, Actually, Wikidemo, it's not a citation. It's a vague, unreferenced assertion with no way to verify it in its current form. Technically, it should be removed now because the burden always falls on editors adding material to the page, not those removing it. Anyway, I say "technically" because I'm happy to wait a bit to see if a proper reference surfaces. If not, it should really be placed on the talk page. I agree with your other comments. J Readings (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you on all counts - no strong opinion on the NBC thing and I didn't realize until after I restored it how vague the reference was. Wikidemo (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the boat I'm in; unless NBC actually said that, it is OR. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you on all counts - no strong opinion on the NBC thing and I didn't realize until after I restored it how vague the reference was. Wikidemo (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Accepting the validity of the citation on good faith, until proven otherwise, Actually, Wikidemo, it's not a citation. It's a vague, unreferenced assertion with no way to verify it in its current form. Technically, it should be removed now because the burden always falls on editors adding material to the page, not those removing it. Anyway, I say "technically" because I'm happy to wait a bit to see if a proper reference surfaces. If not, it should really be placed on the talk page. I agree with your other comments. J Readings (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- TV programs can be cited for a variety of purposes - we even have a template for that sort of thing, {{cite episode}}. If you have the airdate, producers, reporter (for news), and network (publisher), then I don't see a problem with sourcing that statement to a television program. Some networks also have transcripts online - I know CNN has done this in the past, and NBC might - so citing the transcript might work, as well - and it would provide a link for Verification. But if we don't know when this was broadcast, I don't know that we can use it - which is a different problem than that fact being original research. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcRbsuwe4uw Here is the NBC broadcast in question. I added it to this talk page ages ago, but my comment was removed. There are many other good, cited sources which were removed from the article with no justification. I am trying to AGF but there seems to be a campaign among certain members of Wikipedia with POV bias to dilute this article's sourcing base until they can AfD it for lack of citations. --Truthseeq (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Well, without getting into what happened in the past, if you have any more sources that were removed would you mind adding them or posting them here so we can restore them? - Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just watched it....two things come to mind. First, it's a youtube reposting of a news broadcast so it's probably copyright infringement. We can't link to it for that reason. But we can reference it. Yet, it doesn't identify the date, author, etc. How to get around that? Now we're in the realm of something verifiable but unciteable. Maybe a hidden comment in the citation with the Youtube file number and date? Second, all the websites flashed up on the screen very quickly and were not identified by the reporter as ED. Did the logo appear somewhere? The fact that it's not mentioned by name suggests it's not all that relevant that ED happened to be one of the various sites Anonymous used. Wikidemo (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for posting the link. I watched and re-watched the youtube video. I agree with Wikidemo; we can't use the link because of copyright infringement, because youtube is generally not citeable, and because -- well, the most obvious reason -- ED was neither mentioned nor shown on the video. I didn't see an ED logo on those pages, either. Under the circumstances, it doesn't make much sense to keep that vague, unsourced sentence in the article. J Readings (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's no problem using YouTube as a link or citation if what's being linked to is not a copyvio. That's a big IF, of course, but there's no blanket ban on YouTube, although I think a lot of Wikipedians think there is (including myself, until very recently). Ford MF (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks for the link. That little section in WP:EXTERNAL will be useful in editing someone's biography (we were wondering if we could have linked to his uploaded video on YouTube. Looks like we can.) That said, in this case, there's still seems to be little (any?) reason to cite this source for the claims made. J Readings (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, no, a link to YouTube is totally inappropriate in this context. I was giving a general heads up. Ford MF (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks for the link. That little section in WP:EXTERNAL will be useful in editing someone's biography (we were wondering if we could have linked to his uploaded video on YouTube. Looks like we can.) That said, in this case, there's still seems to be little (any?) reason to cite this source for the claims made. J Readings (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's no problem using YouTube as a link or citation if what's being linked to is not a copyvio. That's a big IF, of course, but there's no blanket ban on YouTube, although I think a lot of Wikipedians think there is (including myself, until very recently). Ford MF (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for posting the link. I watched and re-watched the youtube video. I agree with Wikidemo; we can't use the link because of copyright infringement, because youtube is generally not citeable, and because -- well, the most obvious reason -- ED was neither mentioned nor shown on the video. I didn't see an ED logo on those pages, either. Under the circumstances, it doesn't make much sense to keep that vague, unsourced sentence in the article. J Readings (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just watched it....two things come to mind. First, it's a youtube reposting of a news broadcast so it's probably copyright infringement. We can't link to it for that reason. But we can reference it. Yet, it doesn't identify the date, author, etc. How to get around that? Now we're in the realm of something verifiable but unciteable. Maybe a hidden comment in the citation with the Youtube file number and date? Second, all the websites flashed up on the screen very quickly and were not identified by the reporter as ED. Did the logo appear somewhere? The fact that it's not mentioned by name suggests it's not all that relevant that ED happened to be one of the various sites Anonymous used. Wikidemo (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Well, without getting into what happened in the past, if you have any more sources that were removed would you mind adding them or posting them here so we can restore them? - Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Chris Forcand
The last sentence of this article currently reads
I have changed pedophile to child abuser in the assumption that "pedophile" was used synonymously with "child abuser", something I consider to be a breach of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Mr. Forcand should be listed for his crime, not for his paraphilia. (Дҭї) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed this entire sentence from the article because it was poorly sourced and a BLP concern. We don't know the exact date, when it was broadcast, if "Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction" was the name of the program or the lead, etc. In short, how are we supposed to verify this material?
Anonymous had been shown in other broadcasts to use ED as a planning hub in other operations including one that led to the arrest of Canadian child abuser Chris Forcand.[2]
Also, because we're talking about highly inflammatory material, it should be sourced properly or not at all. WP:RS and WP:BLP are clear about this. J Readings (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- ^ "Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction". 2006. Global Television Network.
{{cite episode}}: Missing or empty|series=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ "Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction". 2006. Global Television Network.
{{cite episode}}: Missing or empty|series=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
User:Wikidemo adds back the poorly sourced material without a time it was broadcast, the name of the show, the name of the producer, etc. making it virtually impossible for me or any third-party to go to the library and verify the information presented. That conflicts with WP:V. Per WP:ETIQUETTE, I'll wait a little bit for the relevant additional information to be added so I (anyone else) can verify the assertion. If nothing is forthcoming, I'll take it that no one actually has that relevant information and we can remove it until it can be sourced properly. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just youtube Forcand, anonymous and so on and you will see the videos if your so worried about proof...ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Someone posted the source. It's perfectly available, just a copyright infringement. This is discussed in the section immediately below. Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit wars and page protection
We've seen today three attempts to remove the link and three reversions of those attempts. Can we please stop edit warring and work out a consensus about what to do here on the talk page before making further changes of this nature? I'd protect the page in the wrong version, but it's already protected. Why don't we pretend I did that and act as we normally act on protected pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Every version is "The Wrong Version" for somebody. And I'm inclined to believe, by now, that anybody who insists on changing any decently-long established status quo for this article -- creating it when it's been deleted, deleting it when it's been created, adding, dropping, making live, or making dead the link -- is doing it for the drama, because that's all it accomplishes. Letting this article sit in a stable state of some sort -- with or without a link -- or letting it be peacefully deleted, for that matter -- produces minuscule drama compared to what takes place whenever there's a big fight over whether to leave it that way or change it somehow. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
My revert
Economics Guy, the reason I reverted the link to the main page is that they sometimes have deeply offensive material on it. For example, not long ago they featured an article that called a young teenage girl who had killed herself a slut, accompanied by her photograph; as I recall, she was thirteen or thereabouts. Putting aside all the other issues with the site, I see no reason we should link directly to that kind of material. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree. I recently saw an article about a 3 year old girl who disappeared, and it was very sick, with lots of obscene stuff. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree in principle to that - I personally wouldn't want the page linking to, and I thought the MONGO case still banned the link. The arbitrators later clarified and said that linking to the article is acceptable if there's consensus to do so. It's unfortunate, but there was consensus a little way up the page to put in a text URL to the page - I'm not sure I saw consensus for a direct link though. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that it's been archived - the discussion is here. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do we need the link? Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Ashton1983 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- This might be a stupid question, but what are the disadvantages? --Conti|✉ 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- So "stupid" nobody's willing to answer it, apparently. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- This might be a stupid question, but what are the disadvantages? --Conti|✉ 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I would feel happier with a text URL, but I've seen no consensus for live links. I believe we have our priorities as a project, and as a group of human beings, somewhat confused if we're banning links to YouTube that might be copyvios, but allowing links that call dead children sluts and whores. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- A text URL. You mean one that isn't clickable? If so, I agree. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree in principle, I know the link was whitelisted very specifically for the purpose of linking to the main page (and only the main page) of ED from this article (and only from this article). I had presumed that there was consensus for the link on that basis, and it has been discussed at length on this page. Edit The discussion was archived, and culminated in the whitelisting announced Here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be consensus for a live link i.e. a clickable one. I think people are willing to agree to a text-only URL as a compromise. That's the way we've often handled very controversial sites. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you read the archive, I think you'll find quite a few who agree. I also know that it was stable for a few days, so I think everyone figured it was a dead issue. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had thought it was more or less done with, yeah. But this is a wiki, latecomers are inevitable. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you read the archive, I think you'll find quite a few who agree. I also know that it was stable for a few days, so I think everyone figured it was a dead issue. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be consensus for a live link i.e. a clickable one. I think people are willing to agree to a text-only URL as a compromise. That's the way we've often handled very controversial sites. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin it's okay... judging from this there is still only a fragile if any consensus for a direct link. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's remove encyclopedic material from Wikipedia just this once, for the children. (Дҭї) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the link going away as a result of a debate. I have a problem with this solution. SlimVirgin has bothered to explain/discuss the revert - that makes the difference. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...and it's been reverted again. Do we need to have another straw poll or !vote or fistfight to determine consensus on this issue? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about a debate? (Дҭї) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- One person not agreeing does not equate to no consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. You removed the link with the message "I think everyone's happy with that on the talk page", and I challenged that. I'm not sure there is even a consensus, but certainly not everyone is in 100% agreement with each other. (Дҭї) 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, you reverted because you weren't happy with it. Have you even bothered reading what people are putting here? Everyone seems happy with a dead link. The original consensus was for a dead link, there's clearly no consensus for a direct link at this stage, yet you go and revert? Something smells funny with that. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean the archives? Or SlimVirgin and those who agreed with him? Consensus can change, and issues can be revisited. On a personal level, I do not feel strongly either way, but I do feel strongly about process. (Дҭї) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, you reverted because you weren't happy with it. Have you even bothered reading what people are putting here? Everyone seems happy with a dead link. The original consensus was for a dead link, there's clearly no consensus for a direct link at this stage, yet you go and revert? Something smells funny with that. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. You removed the link with the message "I think everyone's happy with that on the talk page", and I challenged that. I'm not sure there is even a consensus, but certainly not everyone is in 100% agreement with each other. (Дҭї) 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- One person not agreeing does not equate to no consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about a debate? (Дҭї) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...and it's been reverted again. Do we need to have another straw poll or !vote or fistfight to determine consensus on this issue? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the link going away as a result of a debate. I have a problem with this solution. SlimVirgin has bothered to explain/discuss the revert - that makes the difference. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's remove encyclopedic material from Wikipedia just this once, for the children. (Дҭї) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I support Slim's opening statement and agree that we should not link to the main page of ED. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Should put a live link with a warning that there is very mature, obscene content on the website. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Tally so far
Per the essay yes, voting is a substitute for discussion the tally up through Dragon696 is as follows. - Wikidemo (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dead link - 3
- Dead link as compromise but prefer no link - 2
- Dead link as compromise, no leaning stated - 4
- Live link - 10
- Eh, the people arguing for a dead link either seem to be arguing for censorship (protecting our readers from content they might find offensive) or just not including the link because they don't like the site. These are clearly contrary to policy regardless of how many people support it. --Rividian (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The updated tally (through AnotherSolipsist) seems to be 15 for a live link, 9 for a dead link (often as a compromise). Interesting how it's gone from a neck-in-neck race to more of a margin for a live link lately... perhaps it's a close-to-even divide among those with a heavy emotional investment in the issue (who tend to be the first to respond), but heavily for a live link among less-involved parties (who straggle in slowly over time). This latter group knows less about the specific issues in this case, but probably better represents the views of the Wikipedia community as a whole. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)