Andrew Gray wrote:
And then, the crowning glory: "Strong keep ... No BLP issues and
Wikipedia contains content you might find objectionable ... Wikipedia
is not censored ... ethical point of views and non-neutral !votes are
irrelevant." - from, god help me, an admin. One of the people we
theoretically select for common sense and an understanding of our
goals. Linking - I am not making this up - to the content disclaimer.
Are we really saying that *because we made up an arbitrary rule
ourselves*, we get to ignore any form of editorial sense and then
loudly disclaim responsibility for the result? Do people honestly
believe that this makes us an encyclopedia? A grand game of nomic over
what does and doesn't constitute a topic, an endless series of rules
on who we can and cannot write about, without any attempt to apply
*judgement* to them? Without any attempt to say - hey, sometimes we
have to make decisions on things?
Welcome to the shitstorm of the week. This is what happens when
administrators take it upon themselves to reinterpret policy and get
everyone in a huff. See my Arbcom case for more.
No one would have noticed a damn thing about this article if certain
people weren't acting the way they have been over the last month or so.
This is simply the latest in a long line of casualties that isn't
going to end pretty.
-Jeff
--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW:
http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
because you kind of get the impression she
sang every song either about or to her cats.
They seem to be the driving force in most of
her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman