On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, remember?
Even then, temporary blanking or even deletion may indeed be considered safety. The first time you get a lawyer's letter stating in what court you will be sued and for how much, it is pretty scary. By about the fiftieth you become a bit more cynical.
Guy (JzG)
Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, but really if it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia, there shouldn't be public article content that's worse than an early 1990s website with "under construction" banners (editorial templates on articles?) And no, we aren't just talking about obscure topics, or even minor topics like Lava lamps. Rather major issues are frequently presented as a hideous mess, and I have not seen evidence after several years that this is becoming less common (even if say, it's more common for a given article to have much more content, indeed potentially useful content even if poorly presented).
Why is the project relying on unpaid amateurs for dealing with legal business? And why on earth would anyone volunteer for that. I read on another thread someone mention that under-18s can't, as they can't be held to account as agents of Wikimedia Foundation. Why should anyone else potentially be held to account for mistakes of random potentially anonymous Wikipedia editors, and the projects policies (written in an ad-hoc manner and changing from one day to the next).
Zoney