Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:04:19 -0400, Jeff Raymond
> Think of it as an advanced example of
assuming good faith. The
> company cannot bear for the "advertising value" of "their"
> be diluted. The only way we can accommodate that is to delete it.
And that, of course, is a load of hooey.
Your evidence for this example of "assume ill faith" being?
It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the
company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their
article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of
thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral
point of view.
And by the way, disagreement with your arguments is not automatically an
assumption of bad faith even though in this case it was a bit harshly