--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The people we are writeing articles about are not
customers.
Every single person on the planet is a customer. We plan to serve all.
blanking or deleting the article= writeing off the
work. Not a nice
way to treat the previous writers. Telling them what is wrong might
work better.
We can not leave potentially wrong, libelous, and/or slanderous text up while the article
is being
reviewed and checked per an Office Action. Everything is still in the history and all the
good
bits will be put back once they are confirmed and cited. Not doing this opens the
foundation up to
lawsuit by unnecessarily pissing off the complaining party while we clean up whatever
valid issues
(if any) they have with the article.
It is a bit difficult to tell how many references
[[Jack Thompson
(attorney)]] had since two different systems were being used but it
was probably over 100 (absolute minium=99). how many do you want?
Without commenting on those particular references - Not all references are equal. Just
because
somebody publishes a completely wrong and biased fact somewhere else does not give us an
OK to
cite that information.
That's
what WP:OFFICE is all about -- good customer service.
I seem to recall the justification was something to do with legal
worries. Are you stateing that is not the case?
Good customer service is a great way to prevent pissing people off so much that they would
be
willing to sue. So the two are closely linked.
Ideally, it
should be thought of as an action that could and should be
taken by any good Wikipedian in the face of a bad article. A very firm
"blank and rewrite with proper cites" is a perfectly valid move for
articles like this.
/Temp exists for such purposes. Outright blanking is pretty much
garenteeded to be reverted.
And reverting an Office Action is pretty much guaranteed to lead to at least temporary
desysoping
and blocking. We also need to feel bold enough to do the right thing when we see an utter
piece of
POV crap and start over by blanking and verifying each and every fact. Perhaps a better
way to do
that is via HTML comments ; text would be commented out until it is verified.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com