In a message dated 8/4/2008 12:16:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes:
A ridiculous claim. How does this play out for people
who have not
used, heard of, nor care about Wikipedia and yet are the subject of an
existing article with a history of heated debate?>>
----------------
Heated debate is not libel.
Heated debate does not require oversight.
And heated debate is not necessarily personally negative.
I'm trying to keep this thread *on track* :)
All these excursions make me wonder exactly what people think is really going
on here. We are not trying to put out the fires. We want the fires. The
fires are part of normal debate on controversial subjects. That is simply a
part of real life.
I had *thought* the point here in this thread, that we'd want to address, are
those situations where libelous, scandalous, unwarranted accusations are
being thrown about willy-nilly (which is quite rare). For which we have
oversight. So far I've seen no valid, logical argument that we need anything more
than oversight.
I'm quite sure that subjects of "heated debate" already know how to handle
"the press" (which includes biographers like us) and that we don't need
brand-new mechanisms to address that. There are old mechanisms, which are working
just fine.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(
http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )