On Oct 28, 2008, at 5:49 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/28/2008 2:35:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
"I want to take away the right for an editor to revert an edit for
the
sole reason that we can't verify the person's identity so what they
say doesn't count. I want to mandate actually looking at the sources,
thinking about the issue, and making a decision based on something
other than "The rules say X, period.">>
-----------------
This has absolutely nothing to do with what occurred.
What occurred was that the subject of the BLP made claims and this
entire
thread is about whether we can alter an article based on the subject
of the BLP
making claims without our ability to identify whether that person is
actually
who they claim to be.
That is all it's about. It's not about any thing else.
Nobody has argued that we should alter based purely on Lanier's edits
to the wiki. But on the other hand, Lanier's edits to the wiki should
have been sufficient cause to look at the claims and fix the article.
That the article went un-fixed after his edits is inexcusable.
Lanier's claims should have caused the article to be fixed. That is
not equivalent to "We should have changed the article on his say-so."
-Phil