Todd writes:
I think we all may be missing the point here, however.
Regardless of
the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping
Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this not
about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
The Foundation has no interest in preventing Wikinews from publishing
a story critical of WMF. If you are under the impression the stories
were censored because they were critical of WMF, then you have your
facts wrong. Anyone who says this is simply mistaken.
"Asserting your concerns privately", from a
position of authority, is
just a roundabout way of not having the "official stamp" on an
official action. If the concerns had been brought up PUBLICLY, and a
regular community discussion held (I don't know the exact way Wikinews
handles deletion discussions, I'm sure they have some procedure), and
the community agreed, then we can say it's a community action.
Unfortunately for your point, not all legal concerns can be discussed
with you in advance in public. If you think about it, you will see why.
--Mike