On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:03:41 -0400, Philip Sandifer
<snowspinner(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG