On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:03:41 -0400, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The only thing that makes the case remarkable is that the WMF got sued. But this is not a lawsuit about a false, defamatory, or even sloppily done article. This is a lawsuit targeted at WMF on an article where the process had previously worked and worked pretty well. It's a lawsuit targeting us at, if not our best, at least at our pretty darn good.
Well - good in parts. Not all of it was actually *that* well sourced or neutrally written, I'd say. But I don't disagree on principle - there's another disgruntled subject being discussed at the moment, my comment to him was that we could not guarantee that he would /like/ the result, but we should be able to guarantee that he can at least accept that it is fair.
Of course, as far as this woman is concerned, I suspect her "fair" is our hagiography. Scammers tend to lack self-criticism. I remember how upset Alan Ralsky was when people started subscribing him for all kinds of junk mail...
Guy (JzG)