On Tue, 11 Sep
2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb
culture with its
ohmigod
you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that,
yes,
you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from
authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can
potentially be
deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing "admin power" is
always
a questionable analysis.
If someone who could reasonably be seen as speaking for Wikipedia told
him
that Wikipedia needed secondary sources for his claim, they are wrong,
and
Wikipedia failed.
It completely misses the point to explain how Wikipedia's actual policies
are
reasonable. The policy that Roth was told about is not reasonable; if it
doesn't match Wikipedia's actual policy, he shouldn't be expected to
figure
that out.
What is our actual policy? What should he have been told, and how?
Fred
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: