Quoting Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
On 12/3/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@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