On 2/24/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/06, SCZenz <sczenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Um, well... Some people work full-time for the
Foundation, and deal
with the big-picture issues that all of us volunteer editors don't
have to worry about.
You mean people complaining about articles about themselves? Been
there done that. Never had to resort to protection. With the exception
of the newsmax incident things mostly worked out OK.
I don't know the story behind what's going on with the Harry Reid
article. Maybe you do, but from my perspective if an article is
getting attention from the Foundation then there might be a reason,
and giving them a few days to handle it isn't unreasonable. Anyway,
there are almost a million other articles to edit!
Every time the Foundation intervenes on an article because they've
received a complaint, there are many cries of overreaction. I think
the perspective people are missing is that Jimbo getting a complaint
personally is different from a user dealing with a complaint on the
General Complaints page--because he runs the Foundation and it is
responsible for Wikipedia's content. It's easy to forget that
Wikipedia is *about* everything, and so it can seem big compared to
the rest of the world, but actually it's very small; we are subject to
legal action, bad publicity, and other inconveniences from complaining
article subjects. Because average users don't have much perspective
on how bad those inconveniences might be, or what the remedies might
be, it is necessarily a Foundation issue to deal with complaints they
have received.
(I'm assuming here the Foundation even got a complaints from someone
about that article--I literally know nothing about what's going on. I
just don't see how it could hurt to give them the benefit of the
doubt.)
SCZenz