-----Original Message----- From: Eugene van der Pijll [mailto:eugene@vanderpijll.nl] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 05:01 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com schreef:
You can see in the real case that the precise wording was argued through 4 and 4.1. Lawyers hate commas, but read it as
"Linking to external sites, which contain information harmful to another person, so as to harass them, is unacceptable."
That's the most paranoid phrasing of a BADSITES-like policy that I have ever seen.
(The first comma turns the clause "which contain information..." into a non-restrictive one, implying that *all* external sites are out to get us...)
Eugene
_______________________________________________
I think you're making too much out of a punctuation error. Fred
On 18/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Eugene van der Pijll [mailto:eugene@vanderpijll.nl] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 05:01 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com schreef:
You can see in the real case that the precise wording was argued through 4 and 4.1. Lawyers hate commas, but read it as
"Linking to external sites, which contain information harmful to another person, so as to harass them, is unacceptable."
That's the most paranoid phrasing of a BADSITES-like policy that I have ever seen.
(The first comma turns the clause "which contain information..." into a non-restrictive one, implying that *all* external sites are out to get us...)
Eugene
I think you're making too much out of a punctuation error.
Since the question is how to interpret the decision, it is important to read the clarification as written.
We are not mind-readers; we cannot know what is a punctuation error in this case.