On 3/11/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote: Everyone is a customer. :)
Then ignoreing the work of a large number of customers simply in order to keep one customer happy is not exactly logical
No. Explaining how things work is probably the best responce.
It is of course *part* of the best response.
True. You should use the article talk page to tell editors what the problem is. I still don't know why [[Harry Reid]] was protected although I guess it had something to do with the whole Abramoff thing.
Protecting is bad because it means we can't fix the article. Deletion is bad because it means we have problems getting acess to any of the past information.
I seem to recall the justification was something to do with legal worries. Are you stateing that is not the case?
Instead of "seem to recall" why don't you actually read it? And then we can have a coherent discussion, ok?
--Jimbo
I have but I also read the other contents of my inbox. Strangly most of the people yelling at me have been citing legal concerns. Probably because they relise how weak the "we should ignore the community in order to keep the subjects of articles happy" case is.
I'm sure you know about the fuss about the [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]. We know that article is upseting people (indeed two people have been upset enough to tell me I'm going to Hell). Should we blank and delete it?
[[David Miscavige]] will probably complain about his article as will [[Kaz Demille-Jacobsen]] if she ever finds out about it. Blank and delete?
[[Uri Geller]] is not going to be happy that his article states that people think he is a con man. Blank and delete?
[[Sylvia Browne]] is unlikely to be too happy about the contents of her article. Blank and delete?
-- geni