[WikiEN-l] The Register decries Wikipedia's "censorship" via OTRS

[Phil Boswell]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 
>> Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action;
> Too often OTRS people remove *all* the material, not just the
> offending stuff. If just one paragraph was removed, I'm sure you would
> get very few complaints from the community. It's blanking whole pages
> without (significant) explanation which annoys people.
> 
When the perceived offence is that an article exists AT ALL on the given
subject, there is little recourse in the short term but to completely blank
the article. If further discussion decides to reinstate the article, no
harm; if the decision is to reinstate under a different title, equally no
harm done.

The thing is that in many of these cases, we have to be able to demonstrate
that we are doing SOMEthing to prove our good faith, in order to assume the
moral high ground. If we can later show that we bent over backwards to help
people, outside observers are more likely to give us the benefit of the
doubt. If we're up against the usual kind of querulous "vexatious litigant"
this can be of great help.

HTH HAND
-- 
Phil
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Register-decries-Wikipedia%27s-%22censorship%22-via-OTRS-tf4042269.html#a11509449
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.