Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:04:19 -0400, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Think of it as an advanced example of assuming good faith. The company cannot bear for the "advertising value" of "their" article to be diluted. The only way we can accommodate that is to delete it.
And that, of course, is a load of hooey.
Your evidence for this example of "assume ill faith" being?
It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
And by the way, disagreement with your arguments is not automatically an assumption of bad faith even though in this case it was a bit harshly worded.