On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)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.