James D. Forrester (james(a)jdforrester.org) [041214 16:29]:
On Monday, December 13, 2004 11:46 PM, David Gerard
wrote:
> daniwo59(a)aol.com (daniwo59(a)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.