David Gerard wrote:
On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Really, the only goal is to let readers know that they are not receiving a good article, as with {{Unbalanced}} or {{POV}}. And like those warnings, we don't need to say which way we think the article might be bent. We just have to let readers know that they're not getting what they get out of most of our articles: a quick, balanced take on some topic of interest to them.
A 'chilling effects' tag ... man, that'll be all over the press in seconds.
I'd run it past Sandra Ordonez (Foundation PR) and Mike Godwin (Foundation lawyer) before proceeding wholeheartedly.
(Can I say that my inner troublemaker is most pleased at the notion? That doesn't make it a good one, of course ;-)
I think this is slightly different than a "chilling effects" tag. Slightly broader. It's meant to cover when we chicken out on something, but also the period when the Foundation has put an WP:OFFICE-ish hold on editing something while they think things through.
Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, it's easy to mistake each for the other. There has been relatively little clarity about when we cross that line, as the WP:OFFICE holds I've noticed seem to take a very long time and have very little visible progress.
Once we've ironed out objections to the tags here, I'll follow your suggestion and run it by those two folks. Thanks for the suggestion.
William
P.S. Although impishness is a big part of my character, I'm not looking to make trouble with this one. Although the necessity irks me, I accept that the WMF's legal budget is not infinite, and we have to pick our battles carefully.