[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[Rob Smith]

On 4/20/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:>
> > Any open source project, content or code or whatever, is subject to or
> > at risk of attacks.  This is a fact of life.
>
> Ah, so tough on the people who are being adversely affected, libeled and
> attacked? We tell them that it is a risk we (sorry, they?) have to run.
> A fact of life 9for them)?
>
> >
> > After all the intensive efforts to set and maintain and enforce BLP
> > policies, no outsider can reasonably claim we aren't trying.
>
> Sorry, but that's crap. Our 'solutions' are utterly unrealistic.
>
> >
> > No insider is going to claim we're succeeding perfectly, either.
> >
> > We can't be perfect.  To attain our project's goals, we have to
> > balance technology, people's time, and policies.  Lacking "approved
> > version" code, we're doing a pretty good approximation of optimally
> > given what our project stands for and the resource constraints.
> >
> Do we also have to balance the harm done to bystanders? Or does
> collateral damage not feature in the accounting analysis?
>
> Doc



Here Here!!  I entered Wikipedia Dispute Resolution & Arbitration in Good
Faith, only to be viciously defamed in the midst of an ArbCom hearing, with
ArbCom turning a blind eye, by default rubber stamping the perpetrators
attacks.  This problem can be ignored for two years, as seems the intent,
but it *must* be dealt wioth sooner of later.

Rob Smith
aka Nobs01