Agreed. Copyright was brought in late in the discussion, after a discussion of whether or not the pages were desirable seemed headed for a decision that they were desirable.
Personally, I !voted to delete them on general grounds, and would say so again, so I have no bias about this in particular
You can delete something as copyvio if you know it to be copyvio, and there isn't much question about that. But you cannot delete something as copyvio because you think it might be copyvio, unless there is consensus on that point. For articles, only obvious and unquestionable copyvio are appropriate for speedy, and there certainly are a large number that do fall in that category.
And you cannot delete a group of pages as copyvio because only some of them are, and you cannot delete an entire article because it contains a copyright image, or other discrete piece.
The last point is the one that applies here.
On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Seriously, I know copyright is critical, but I can't help but think it was used as a means to the desired end in this case.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. you've more than likely hit the nail on the head.
This is the problem with any policy that enables easy-to-make but hard-to-revert changes, it becomes a powerful bludgeon that is oh so tempting to misuse. There was a controversy over the use of BLP in this way just a little while ago.
One notable distinction is that the BLP debate involved deletions on a one-article-at-a-time basis. The current situation takes it further into mass deletions.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l