On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:46 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 2/24/2008 3:42:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
george.herbert(a)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?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com