On 22 Apr 2007 at 15:27:00 +0100, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
We're not talking about Brandt and mildly critical stuff on a well-written and highly monitored article. We are not talking about people trying to cover up neutral reports of the truth. That's a straw-man.
So, basically, what you're saying is that there's a category of bios that should perhaps be deleted because they're too little-watched and little-maintained to be certain of being free from vandalism, malicious POV, etc. which could harm their subjects... but that Daniel Brandt's article is *not* in that category, thanks to all the agitating he has done and the resulting heavy attention paid to his article?
If that's the case, and if a policy is ultimately enacted that reflects it, then it would be interesting to see how Brandt reacts to it, if some other bios get deleted under this standard but not his own. If his goal is purely public-spirited, to get some rights on the part of bio subjects who are at high risk of harm under the current system, then he should consider it a victory. If his goal is more self-centered, about wanting to suppress his own bio and not giving a damn about anybody else's except where it helps his own case, then he'll keep fighting.
But where it comes to his legal threats, his potential case has continually weakened. First it was "Wikipedia is libeling me now!" Then it was "Even if they're not libeling me now, their system inherently means that they're likely to be libeling me in the future." Then, once his article got so heavily watched that it was unlikely to have any kind of persistent libel in it, it retreated to "Their system inherently means that they're likely to be libeling *somebody else* in the future, and thus having me in that system at all is an assault on me, even if nothing libelous about me specifically is likely to be there." And even that argument would likely go away if a policy like the one you propose were enacted.
Hence, the potential harm of his threats have retreated from "Wikipedia will probably win, but it might drag on a while in the courts and cost some legal bills to defend" to "It's likely to be tossed out of court very quickly, and might even result in the plaintiff being ordered to pay the defendant's legal bills."