-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Using the {{office}} template to tag problem content is a nice idea, but, I would imagine, has a rather serious drawback: Wikitruth.info (amongst other 'helpful' critics) seems to have a sysop working for them. Were we to flag an article that was libellous with {{office}}, you can bet that they would go and dig out the deleted sections, and repost it to their wonderful service. Now Wikimedia has been informed that they are likely to be sued, and in response has done something knowing that it would increase the publication and spread of this libel. - we're then liable for their reposting of the content, and "utterly screwed". I know, I know, "that's not what was intended". Well, tough, that's the way the Real World(tm) works.
So, what does this mean? Well, flagging articles as Office-protected is a legal no-no in that kind of case, and something significantly less high profile has to be done - and, possibly, the existence of this action would be buried for all eternity (or, certainly, several decades, which on the Internet is much the same thing).
This is something that we have to deal with /now/ - the Foundation could possibly be sued out of existence tomorrow. There is no time for us to have a nice chat, or wring our hands about whether it's properly the "wiki way". We're here to build an encyclopædia, above all things, and if you don't care that the Foundation is here to keep everything working, then possibly you need to re-evaluate your priorities and commitment to this project; Distributed Proofreaders could always do with a few more volunteers, for instance.
Please note that this is all conjecture on my part, I'm not the one who makes {{office}} decisions.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com