On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/22 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:34 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/21 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
We'll be able to see why when the court throws out the allegations against WMF? I fail to see what about the Wikinews article would make that less likely to happen,
In a civil action, being seen to play nice is very important indeed and gets you lots of points.
Shouldn't the WMF play nice with everyone, not just those who sue it?
When doing so doesn't compromise our goals, yes.
I think that's an important point, and one perhaps forgotten a little too often. Our ultimate goal is an accurate, NPOV work. If we can avoid bruising feelings while writing such a work, great. If bruising feelings is an inevitable consequence of following accuracy and NPOV, and not doing so would compromise those things, we, to put it bluntly, should bruise them. Unfortunately, sometimes, as the old saying goes, the truth hurts. That doesn't mean, when it's well-sourced and appropriate for inclusion, that we should not tell it.
I think it's an open question as to which category the deletion of the Bauer article falls into, but if the answer is that its deletion *doesn't* compromise the goals of the foundation, then I think there's a lot more deletion that should take place.
If this was an office action, that's one thing. If Mike Godwin properly assessed the legal risk the article posed and Sue or Erik (or whoever is supposed to be in charge of making decisions on "office actions") decided that the risk wasn't worth it, that's fine. But if this wasn't an office action, then what was it? Can a single random admin decide they don't like an article and delete it? Does Wikinews give that much power to its admins?
Is there a good place to go for a neutral account of the story about the story about the story about the article?