But Phil the information wasn't "bad". It was accurate. Our sources state it.
Continuing on this road, isn't going anywhere. I'm sure you can see that. Reliable Source A states X There is no reliable source which states not-X
You want to give an anonymous editor the right to state not-X. That isn't going to work. So you or someone else who wants this change will have to come up with something we can all agree upon. **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:14 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
But Phil the information wasn't "bad". It was accurate. Our sources state it.
It was misleading at best. That is a form of badness.
You want to give an anonymous editor the right to state not-X. That isn't going to work. So you or someone else who wants this change will have to come up with something we can all agree upon.
No. 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."
-Phil