Brian writes:
I am aware of this. I do not see how something illegal and unflagged would become the responsibility of an editorial committee or board. The point would be to say, "Here is *raw* Wikinews", or "Here is editorially checked Wikinews". The latter being the default for Google and all anonymous visitors. Registered users should get a choice which to view. (I am not aware of technical details of FlaggedRevs).
Boy, I sure would hate to be the lawyer who had to explain this point to a judge.
--Mike
Boy, I sure would hate to be the lawyer who had to explain this point to a judge.
You know, as the person paid to be the legal expert here, it would be helpful if you would make straight points as opposed to unhelpful rhetoric.
On 04/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Boy, I sure would hate to be the lawyer who had to explain this point to a judge.
You know, as the person paid to be the legal expert here, it would be helpful if you would make straight points as opposed to unhelpful rhetoric.
That was an extremely straight point: that argument is unlikely to fly.
- d.
On 04/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Boy, I sure would hate to be the lawyer who had to explain this point to a judge.
You know, as the person paid to be the legal expert here, it would be helpful if you would make straight points as opposed to unhelpful rhetoric.
That was an extremely straight point: that argument is unlikely to fly.
He didn't say that, though, although I agree that's probably what he meant. There is a difference between something being difficult and it being unlikely to succeed. He said the former and (I think) meant the latter. Some form of explanation would also be nice, of course...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org