On 12/4/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. We should delete infringing material. But before we do so we should actually look to see if it is infringing material. That speedy deletion criterion says we can delete material *on suspicion* and without carrying out the slightest bit of research.
"cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website" implies a slight bit of research. However, I am with Tony on this one. I don't see what the new policy would bring other than more confusion to HD and helpdesk-l.
It's newbie-biting, and it's putting too much meaning into a simple google search. The process is apparently this: single editor finds material that looks like a cut-and-paste job, does google, finds copy. Source doesn't look to single editor like a GFDL source, so single editor without consulting a single other human being deletes the article.
Why is it not enough to have more than one person make the decision, and the decision to be made over a reasonable period?
I've seen all kinds of excuses, but not explanation of why this extension is needed. It almost seems to me like a CSD proposal deliberately crafted to delete articles that do not infringe copyright.