Todd Allen writes:

On that, I would agree. However, when it -is- WMF taking an official action, it should be clearly marked as such. If it is not, it should be made absolutely, 100% clear that this is "Mike Godwin, the editor" not "Mike Godwin, the WMF representative" putting forth the position.

My closet has room for more than two hats. I understand you would prefer that I wear only a black hat or a white hat, but the real world has a knack for thumbing its nose at us when we try to impose binary categories.

What should be studiously avoided (ESPECIALLY in cases where the material at issue is critical of WMF) is some grey area between the two.

I agree it should be avoided, if possible, and if avoiding it does not entail legal risks. It should be noted that one of the stories that was removed was not at all critical of WMF, so far as I know. The other one was absolutely legally actionable, but not because it was critical of WMF. If we followed your rule, then you'd have given defamers a great "gotcha" card to play -- all they have to get us into an editorial fight is make sure they accompany whatever libel they post about someone else with a criticism of WMF. Then if WMF uses an OFFICE action to remove libelous material, they can cry "censorship!" and trigger a flame war on the lists.

Yes, yes, that would be far more productive than simply contacting an editor and explaining what is urgently wrong with an article.

--Mike