On 11/28/07, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As others have pointed out, the five editors she
discussed it with may
not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have
mistaken no objections for positive feedback -- or she may have
thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback
about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere
in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that
they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point
in conducting a witchhunt.
For once, Slim, I hope one of your explanations is correct. Of course nobody will really
know for sure unless they have a generally accurate idea as to what, if anything, was
actually said.
If there are "copyright issues", it can all be paraphrased. If the other parties
have privacy concerns, their names can be omitted. If there is sensitive information about
the user being discussed, it can be replaced with placeholders as appropriate. Maybe the
hypothetical finished product, like many "de-classified" documents, would be 90%
blacked out. Not a big deal, as the only salient part would be whether the prospect of
blocking was ever actually mentioned.
Unfortunately this overlooks the fact that said documents (if they exist), being digital,
can be modified to no end, and with impunity if there were no original copies to compare
against.
—C.W.