On 4/23/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
The notably infamous Brandt has a few more things to
say on the
subject of what he might do to Wikipedia even if Wikipedia caves in
fully to his demands that his bio be deleted. Unfortunately, the
comments are on a site where, if I linked to it on Wikipedia itself,
various people would go ballistic about it and try to enforce alleged
policies against linking to such sites, but no such rule seems to
exist on this list, so here's the link:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8430
See how he "may decide" to "file a lawsuit anyway" even if we give
him what he's asking for. Subsequent discussion includes some back-
and-forth debate about whether the "Wikipedia Cabal" has secretly
decided to delete Brandt's bio because it's too much trouble (and,
along with that, suppress all internal opposition to such deletion
forcibly), or, contrariwise, that the cabal will carefully craft a
new BLP policy that allows some recourse to "bio victims" but still
lets them keep the Brandt article... either way, they think he should
sue about it. In addition to supporting such a suit, the
commentators are in general agreement that the fatal flaw of any
possible policy that comes out of Wikipedia is that the policy comes
out of Wikipedia; it's made by people within the Wikipedia community
and consistent with that community's values and principles, which is
inherently wrong: the policy should be imposed on Wikipedia from
outside, preferably by the most fervent haters of the site and
everything it stands for.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh World, when will you learn to listen to drini :P
3 days before he got unblocked:
----------
"I also took down the IRC logs. As I move toward litigation, it has
become clearer to me that Jimbo and the Foundation are responsible for
the behavior of their editors, because they control the structure of
Wikipedia. There is no point in confusing the judge and jury."