On 5/2/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't recall any official stance. It was
the responsible thing to delete it and oversight it, however. While this particular
instance is not terribly risky due to its widespread distribution, there can be very
serious legal liabilities. When one of our anonymous editors posts a bond sufficient to
cover likely damages, I'll back down.
This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, any admin could delete any article out
of process at any time for "legal reasons", regardless of whether
Wikipedia's lawyer, or any lawyer, has been consulted. People, we *have* a
process for deleting articles that are legally questionable. It's called
[[WP:OFFICE]]. Out of process speedy deletion is not it.
The lack of staff legal counsel or any lawyers on the WMF advisory
board makes this hard.
The en: admins came up with an adhoc policy, stuck with it, kept
communications open, and performed well. Cooperation and reason won
out. In this particular case, a sign of a functional community.
Compare that with Digg, which is *not* a deliberatiive community. You
saw what happened there.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)