-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com>
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 4:54 pm
Subject: [Foundation-l] Office action
> It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of
TRANSPARENCY regarding
> office actions. The right of the community to get all information
> cannot be overruled by Mr. Godwin's personal opinions about secret
> things.
>
In the world outside this mailing list, the fact that
I'm responding to this
extent to these criticisms would itself be taken as proof of transparency,
not disproof.
----------------------------------------------------
Well yes, but after the fact. If I'm reading the criticism correctly the point being
made is that within the process
there might be some room for *including* the community in these actions, or at the very
least replacing the deleted pages
with an explanation of what occurred and how to *fix* it. We've seen that here, you
helpfully described what a person
should do if they object to the deletion. But is that information on the deleted pages
themselves?
What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like YouTube uses,
"This Video has been deleted
based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation" ? And then an extension of
"If you believe this is public domain material
then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah"