On 7/12/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:14:34 -0700, Ray
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.
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
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
inappropriate content, at least when editors are made aware of a
That is just one crucial difference.
The track record of Wikipedia Review isn't quite
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,
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,
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"