David Gerard wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net
I raised this a while back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University was office protected. Editors had gathered some well-cited material, Jimbo said go ahead and rewrite, so we did. It got hacked back again. I don't have a problem with this, as Brad has now old us what the concern was, and we can work with that. I do have a problem with a couple of elements of process:
- The problem was not communicated until after the event, resulting in
another pissed-off phone call to Brad which could have been avoided.
- I was told the new version was not "cleared with foundation" but no
mechanism exists for doing that, else I would have done so.
- Brad (or Danny or Jimbo) does not scale. People get impatient when
months go by with no explanation of why we cannot say something which is, or appears to be, verifiably true. This was a particular problem with the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost.
So what should be the process for getting foundation approval for a rewrite where an article subject has made a complaint causing protection, and how can we ensure that the substance of the complaint is communicated (to the extent possible without compromising the various parties)?
Is it possible to facilitate communication direct with the parties where errors of fact are the problem, to let them know in advance when changes are to be made?
And where an external source (in this case Bear's Guide) says that two institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are different, how do we go about validating that? It's all very well for them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
In a manner similar to what I have said before in relation to copyright problems protocols need to be established for dealing with these situations with legal implications. If the person responding to the call feels that there is some merit to the complaint, that would require strict adherence to that protocol. Criteria for sourcing and verifiability are a separate issue since they would apply whether or not there is a telephone complaint. The protocol is important for ensuring that we are not working at cross purposes. That requires proper and timely information about the complaint that caused the Office to Act. With that information available it is much easier to follow the rationale for it. What does not work is an authoritarian edict from the Office. The Office should know by now that such edicts are normally followed by a storm of protest.
Ec