On 7/12/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:14:34 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Just like any web site! Bad sites can have good pages; good sites can have bad pages. Yawn!
But WR has only threads, which are all vulnerable to hijack by trolls, however well-intentioned we might in a moment of extreme Mary Poppins optimism believe the site's owners to be.
Guy (JzG)
Wait, so our argument is pretty much a slippery-slope,"even if a given page isn't inappropriate, it could be made inappropriate at any given moment"?
Not just that they "could be", but that they actually have an incredibly consistent history of exactly that.
True, Wikipedia does have a track record of quickly cleaning up inappropriate content, at least when editors are made aware of a problem.
That is just one crucial difference.
The track record of Wikipedia Review isn't quite so clear, especially because everyone has a different idea of what type of content is acceptable. It does appear that the current board administration is more than willing to work with users who raise legitimate complaints, however.
From the little I've seen, very little is actually done beyond a nod
and a wink. Problems that have been complained about months ago, and more than once, get a pseudo-legalistic run-around from the admins "first you have to prove you're the person in question", "we would have taken it down, but we can't now because you've threatened us" etc.