[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[jayjg]

> On 11/29/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007 12:26 PM, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 11/28/07, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at 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.
> >
> > Actually, you do know for sure. Matt said it, Guy said it, Slim said
> > it, and I'm sure they all "have a generally accurate idea as to what,
> > if anything, was actually said."

>
> On Nov 29, 2007 1:37 PM, G MZ <solebaciato at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Durova said quite clearly on wikipedia that the response from the 5 ranged
> from possitive to entheusiastic.

Yes, but what exactly were they responding to, and where? This point
has been made multiple times, it's discouraging to have to continually
repeat it.