2008/9/6 <WJhonson(a)aol.com>om>:
And by the way, people are
not shy to scream libel within AfD and if they do that portion of the article
can still be, and is, oversighted even while AfD is ongoing.
This actually occurs. It's not always done, because 95% of the time, it's
not libel at all.
I have just checked the oversight policy, and it seems to be that it
might not be done because the oversight policy says it *shouldn't* be
done in most cases, libel or not.
"This feature is approved for use ... [for] Removal of potentially
libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation
counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the
information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and
there is no editorial reason to keep the revision."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight
You or I determining something is probably libellous at AFD (or
elsewhere) isn't enough for oversight unless the subject complains or
we have higher support. Neither of these, I would suspect, are common
cases!
As such, taking the low level of oversight as an indication that the
rest of the content is reasonably good is... not very useful, I fear.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk