daniwo59@aol.com (daniwo59@aol.com) [041214 10:38]:
getting it featured article status
That's different from 'main page candidate' status. Featured Article means it's acknowledged as being up to a certain standard.
Besides, the CoS could always send in an NPOV editor ...
- d.
On Monday, December 13, 2004 11:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com (daniwo59@aol.com) [041214 10:38]:
getting it featured article status
That's different from 'main page candidate' status. Featured Article means it's acknowledged as being up to a certain standard.
Indeed; I think that we probably should feature this and other Scientology-related articles on the Main Page, but I would be worried that doing so might well put us on their radar, which could very well be a Bad Thing in terms of sysop load.
[Snip]
As to the Fair Use bit, I completely agree with you about this qualifying.
Yours,
James D. Forrester (james@jdforrester.org) [041214 16:29]:
On Monday, December 13, 2004 11:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com (daniwo59@aol.com) [041214 10:38]:
getting it featured article status
That's different from 'main page candidate' status. Featured Article means it's acknowledged as being up to a certain standard.
Indeed; I think that we probably should feature this and other Scientology-related articles on the Main Page, but I would be worried that doing so might well put us on their radar, which could very well be a Bad Thing in terms of sysop load.
We've had a contributor from the Church of Scientology before. He even discussed things on talk pages in a suitable manner. Doesn't seem to have done much lately, though.
If a flock of troublemakers descend, I think normal Wikipedia immune response will cope just fine.
As to the Fair Use bit, I completely agree with you about this qualifying.
"Scientology vs Wikipedia"? How mediapathic can you get? I suppose "Scientology vs Cute Fluffy Kittens" would be worse ...
Not that I would insinuate that the CoS is anything other than a fine, upstanding community organisation of flawless repute that happens to charge $6,500 for a galvanometer. No, if I was going to do that I'd state it outright with lots of good references.
- d.