Quoting Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 12/3/07, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary
source
wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that couldn't
happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that,
nor try
to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
That's interesting-- I totally don't see going to the press (in the
abstract) as a bad thing, I see it as a valuable RFC from the larger
community-- in the case, the community of humans.
Yes, but that's an RfC from people with little to no knowledge about how the
community actually functions. From past experience such RfCs just increase the
heat levels while providing no light and result in all sorts of additional
problems for the privacy of involved editors. And while I don't see it
going to
press as a bad thing in the abstract(it really does show how far Wikipedia has
come along that our internal disputes get such press coverage) in general past
coverage of disputes has made things worse rather than better.
But I wonder if I really believe that, or if I just
believe that in
this case because I tend to agree that the Durova Incident was such a
huge deal. When you have a human brain, you can never really be
sure-- or at least, I can't. :)
Alec