On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)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
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...