I raised this a while back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University was office protected. Editors had gathered some well-cited material, Jimbo said go ahead and rewrite, so we did. It got hacked back again. I don't have a problem with this, as Brad has now old us what the concern was, and we can work with that. I do have a problem with a couple of elements of process:
* The problem was not communicated until after the event, resulting in another pissed-off phone call to Brad which could have been avoided.
* I was told the new version was not "cleared with foundation" but no mechanism exists for doing that, else I would have done so.
* Brad (or Danny or Jimbo) does not scale. People get impatient when months go by with no explanation of why we cannot say something which is, or appears to be, verifiably true. This was a particular problem with the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost.
So what should be the process for getting foundation approval for a rewrite where an article subject has made a complaint causing protection, and how can we ensure that the substance of the complaint is communicated (to the extent possible without compromising the various parties)?
Is it possible to facilitate communication direct with the parties where errors of fact are the problem, to let them know in advance when changes are to be made?
And where an external source (in this case Bear's Guide) says that two institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are different, how do we go about validating that? It's all very well for them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
Guy (JzG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University was office protected. Editors had gathered some well-cited material, Jimbo said go ahead and rewrite, so we did. It got hacked back again. I don't have a problem with this, as Brad has now old us what the concern was, and we can work with that. I do have a problem with a couple of elements of process:
The most important thing is for us to be told what the complaint was so we can fix it. All that would take is a quick message from Danny on the talk page - surely he can make time for that?
And where an external source (in this case Bear's Guide) says that two institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are different, how do we go about validating that? It's all very well for them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
If there is a reliable source stating the information, and it's properly referenced, any complaint should be responded to with a simple "Sorry you feel this way, but we have reliable sources for the information in the article. If you believe our sources are mistaken, please provide alternative sources. Thank you." - there is no need for any office protection in such a case.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And where an external source (in this case Bear's Guide) says that two institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are different, how do we go about validating that? It's all very well for them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
One way of at least limiting damage to our accuracy and credibility is to explicitly mark such pages as being incomplete due to legal threats. If Pacific Western University's lawyers prohibit us from writing the sort of complete, neutral, verifiable article that we otherwise would have done, then we have a duty to warn our readers of that fact before they read our article.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
And where an external source (in this case Bear's Guide) says that two institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are different, how do we go about validating that? It's all very well for them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
One way of at least limiting damage to our accuracy and credibility is to explicitly mark such pages as being incomplete due to legal threats. If Pacific Western University's lawyers prohibit us from writing the sort of complete, neutral, verifiable article that we otherwise would have done, then we have a duty to warn our readers of that fact before they read our article.
Legal threats alone should not be the basis for any permanent resolution of problems in an article. Temporarily removing material while the facts are being checked is one thing, but once the facts are established it is dangerous to be intimidated by some lawyer purporting to prohibit the inclusion of valid information. There is a point where letting them sue is the proper strategy.
As to whether the California and Hawaii operations are related, a check of official records should provide the names of the directors for both schools. That, more than anything else will serve to establish whether they are operating at arm's length. That would be stronger evidence than anything the institutions of "Bears' Guide" could give.
Ec