On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's permanently destructive.
Those images were not ours to keep. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Not difficult for me to understand, but a) never assume what's obvious to you is obvious to others (but do trust it's explainable), b) people aren't fully rational beings, c) people are *always* going to be upset when their work is undone, no matter the reason, d) having a good reason for doing something doesn't mean you don't have to provide it.
It's much like the new verifiability policy: just because something is verifiable isn't sufficient, there needs to be a source as well.
Oh yeah, and e) copyright law as it currently stands sucks major eggs.