On 17 May 2011 16:28, Ken Arromdee <[email protected]> wrote: > Summary: This site is a controversial site that is often considered an attack > site, but we have an article about it anyway. The site shut down and the > users of the old site restarted it at a different location. Wikipedia has > decided that site should be considered defunct and the new site ignored > because 1) the new site is for harassment and we shouldn't link to harassment > (even though the same is true of the old site, yet we have an article about > it), 2) the new site is a copyright violation of the old site and we're > not supposed to link to copyright violations (even though the claim that it > is a copyright violation is based on selectively using one of two > contradictory copyright notices from the old site), and 3) we have no reliable > source claiming the two sites are the same.
The new site has indeed had about 0 verifiable third-party coverage. It's not clear it's sustainable either - the original ED was barely financially viable with wall-to-wall porn ads, what the current one runs on is unknown. I would suggest that we can wait for verifiable third-party coverage and we don't need an article tomorrow. I do take your broader point, though: when we have things that were notable for a while and now get little to no coverage, there's very little to base updated coverage on. The [[Citizendium]] and [[Conservapedia]] articles are cases in point - the articles are now patchy and outdated, and anyone looking those up in hope of finding out "so whatever happened with those?" will not have that question answered. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
