On 11/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 10:33 AM, Alec Conroy
<alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(Of course-- I often see it asked why we would
ever need to like to a
site like WikiTruth-- this case has shown us yet another answer, as
this valuable discussion would not have been possible with such links.
)
What specific value did the contents of that e-mail add to this discussion?
It would have been impossible to assess Durova's judgment (and lack
thereof) without actually seeing the evidence. She has, supposedly,
threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email
is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want
to take. This necessitates the existence of linking to some other
forum which provides the email, so the community can see her
"evidence" and judge for ourselves.
I think it's regrettable that Durova and the Foundation have made
decision that, in this particularly instance, turned Wikitruth into an
actual useful forum for for arriving at the truth. Wikipedia should
have been be the place people could turn to in order to get this
information.
(that said, it's not to imply bad faith on the part of Durova or the
Foundations lawyers. It's natural durova wouldn't want her
embarassing evidence reprinted, it's naturate the lawyers would be
want to minimize liability-- however unlikely. But the net result of
it all is that, on this specific instance, Wikitruth is where you have
to go if you want to read the truth about why !! was banned-- and I
think that's a bad thing for the project, because it leads to the
believe that those sites are truthful in general)
Alec