----- "Michael Peel" <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
> I've been feeling a bit uneasy about this whole issue since I first
> heard about it (this morning); it was obviously the best real-life
> approach to deal with this, but the top-down approach within
> Wikipedia (i.e. coming from Jimmy) was worrying. I can understand why
> it was top-down, and can't think of a better way that it could have
> been done, but I'm still not too keen on it. If it had involved
> reliable references, then I'd be a lot more worried if it had still
> played out in the same fashion.
I'm also a little uneasy about it, but to me it seems to be the one case in 1000 where even Wikipedia agrees that more information is actually a bad thing.
I think the only way of responding to these kind of dilemmas is through office actions like this. Although Jimmy Wales was the main driver on this, it was largely implemented by admins - independent volunteers like the rest of us who no doubt would have kicked up a fuss if the case had been more problematic.
As to whether it was a "reliable source", I've no doubt it was in the context - this was just the easiest excuse to hang the actions off.
Andrew