[WikiEN-l] Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

[The Cunctator]

Thanks for the reply, but a reply really needs to come from
Jimmy/Danny/Anthere/ Angela etc. on this.

On 3/12/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> >On 3/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Delirium wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I didn't say anything quite that extreme, and contrary to Jimbo's
> >>>assumption, I'm not particularly angry about it either.  I'm just
> >>>worried that the current policy of letting some people go "over the
> >>>head" of editors by taking things to the Wikimedia Foundation, which
> >>>then deals with them in a top-down manner, will introduce systemic bias
> >>>into the encyclopedia.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Current policy does not let anyone go "over the head" of editors and the
> >>Wikimedia Foundation does not deal with them in a "top-down manner".
> >>
> >>
> >>> This leads to some articles having different policies
> >>>than other articles,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This is false.
> >>
> >>
> >Now I'm confused. Can you tell me which of the following is inaccurate
> >/ not true?
> >
> >1. Calling the Foundation to complain about Wikipedia is not an
> >officially recognized way to change content on Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> This is the inaccurate statement. Contacting the Wikimedia Foundation
> with a complaint has been officially recognized as a way to address
> inappropriate content for as long as the organization has existed.
> That's why we have a designated agent, for example, as required by law.

According to Anthony, this is not the case... I'll wait for Jimmy to
resolve this question.


> >2. Calls to the Foundation complaining about Wikipedia content have led to
> >a) edits to Wikipedia by Foundation staff
> >b) Blanking of Wikipedia articles by Foundation staff
> >c) Protection of Wikipedia articles by Foundation staff
> >d) Various combinations of the above
> >
> >
> Also, deletion of Wikipedia articles as well as images and other files.
> I don't see a problem with this. Do you expect the Foundation to not do
> anything about legitimate complaints? It has to take action regarding
> such complaints, otherwise it loses any legal protection it has against
> being liable for the content on Wikipedia.

I wasn't claiming this was a problem -- I was just trying to
accurately represent the situation.

> >3. Actions listed above by Foundation staff are sometimes marked by
> >WP:OFFICE and any interference with such actions by any editor can
> >lead to revokation of editing/sysop rights.
> >
> >
> Again, why is there a problem? Violations of plenty of other policies
> can lead to revocation of editing or administrative *privileges*.

Again, I wasn't calling this a problem. See above.