Carcharoth wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash
<phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
[[User:Rodhullandemu]] - "still flying the
flag for Wikipedia, for
some inexplicable reason".
Does this refer to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodhullandemu&diff=43191…
I'm not going to comment further, but I think others who respond to
your posts should be aware of this.
Actually, you did comment further, and on a personal level; see below. And
the lack of response in nearly nine hours to your post amply demonstrates,
to me at least, how you seems to have missed the point.
What the scope of this mailing list should be (given
your recent posts
on BLP matters, all copied to Jimmy Wales), is something I'd like to
see discussed by the list moderators and those posting here. If there
is a reason or rationale behind the posts, attempting to demonstrate
something, then fine, but it would be courteous to state that rather
then just post randomly like this.
Starting at the back, and working forward, my posts are not random. They are
carefully selected examples based on my experience as (currently) a reader
of Wikipedia and my responses to what I found. I take it as obvious that if
I can read these articles, so can their subjects, and if they don't like
what they see, making appropriate noises, or (in extreme cases) litigating
against the Foundation.
We have BLP policies for that reason, and while I see editors on Wikipedia
competing to provide articles about bacon(!), fiddling about with templates
that are ostensibly fit for purpose as they are[1], and still arguing about
trivial issues, nobody seems to be committed to clearing backlogs of
articles that actually provide legal, if not journalistic, risk for WP and
its parent. And there are myriad similar examples.
My personal reasons are less important than making sure that this project
does, and can, continue without unnecessary diversions into legalities-
perhaps I've been spending too much time reading up Commons policies of
late, one of which (to paraphrase) says that "just because nobody will
notice a copyright violation is no reason to ignore policy"- and so it
should be with any policy on any WMF project that may have consequences for
the Foundation. I am available to discuss any non-apparent personal
motivations PRIVATELY by email rather than on a public list. But don't
assume that I don't have our project's viability at heart.
As a lawyer by training, qualifications, experience, and observation, I've
seen many operations thought to be acting blithely within the law crumble to
the ground when the courts have upheld unexpected, but valid challenges. I'm
not suggesting this is likely in our case; but neither is it beyond the
bounds of possibility, and at least if I bring risks to the attention of
others, my hands are clean.
Hope that helps.
[1] and consuming unnecessary resources in TfDs