On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:46 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/24/2008 3:42:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, george.herbert@gmail.com writes:
That this whole thing is perpetually badly communicated is a failure in how Betacommand and others are operating, but that doesn't mean that the bot is breaking policy.>>
You can follow policy while simultaneously upsetting 5 or 50 established editors. That is not a rationale for what BCB did.
Not that I agree that BCB is actually following policy. BCB has, and continues to refuse any transparency into his process. So we really can't tell can we?
It should be fairly plain that many established editors have issues with the situation. So merely stating that he is or isn't following policy doesn't quite get at the core issue.
Will Johnson
There is complete transparency in what Betacommandbot is doing.
It's taking fair-use licensed images, which don't have a currently policy compliant fair-use justification including a per-page justification for where it's used now, and tagging them as policy noncompliant.
Is there any part of that which is unclear to you?