On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too
bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent
significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not
likely to react to well to any attempted removal.
If the New York Times had claimed the information is harmful, Jimbo would have
deleted the information much earlier--no editor would have gotten a *chance*
to spend a significant amount of time defending it. You don't get editors
investing a lot of time if you make the deletion a fait accompli before a lot
of time has passed.
Jimbo isn't a commons admin.
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using
normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a
fait accompli.)