On 4/21/06, Kirill Lokshin
On 4/20/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/06, Kelly Martin
On 4/20/06, Kirill Lokshin
> The practical question here is how we go about determining which
> admins are "problematic".
It is probably worth remembering that this whole sorry argument began
with one of
the few dozen people least likely to get desysopped by any
If you mean the unprotect/desysop/block mess, certainly.
If we make some (possibly quite incorrect) assumptions about why Danny
moved in the way he did -- to wit, that at least a partial reason for
keeping office actions less visible is the leaking of deleted
information -- it becomes less clear. Would desysopping the (assumed)
admin(s) passing this information to wikitruth -- ignoring for the
moment the question of whether we can catch them -- help in avoiding
the need for this sort of secrecy in the future? Or will office
actions need to be kept under wraps even if there's no danger of
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Why should we worry about Wikitruth? They claim to be the "Scandal Sheet
that anyone can edit." It will probably be a ghost site within a year.
If we need to use Office for whatever reasons, we need to use Office. The
fact is that if an article meets out standards such as NPOV, no original
research and verifiability, it shouldn't have problems with Office. It is
the articles which don't comply with these standards that run into problems.
If we have an article which is a stub for a day or so, we have plenty of
time to expand it in a way consistent with our policies
We shouldn't worry about what Wikitruth thinks or says.
We should take notice of considered criticism from whatever source whether
it be Nature, the Guardian, USA Today or the blogger who raised concerns
about some of our biographies such as Jane Fonda. I have seen nothing on
Wikitruth that indicates that we should consider its criticisms seriously.
We certainly should not change our policies because of them.
A brief inspection of Wikitruth has given me no reason to consider its
comments to be considered criticism. It is a derivative of Wikipedia and of
little interest to the wider world.