On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:14 AM, WJhonson(a)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