On 11/28/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 10:33 AM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
(Of course-- I often see it asked why we would ever need to like to a site like WikiTruth-- this case has shown us yet another answer, as this valuable discussion would not have been possible with such links. )
What specific value did the contents of that e-mail add to this discussion?
It would have been impossible to assess Durova's judgment (and lack thereof) without actually seeing the evidence. She has, supposedly, threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want to take. This necessitates the existence of linking to some other forum which provides the email, so the community can see her "evidence" and judge for ourselves.
I think it's regrettable that Durova and the Foundation have made decision that, in this particularly instance, turned Wikitruth into an actual useful forum for for arriving at the truth. Wikipedia should have been be the place people could turn to in order to get this information.
(that said, it's not to imply bad faith on the part of Durova or the Foundations lawyers. It's natural durova wouldn't want her embarassing evidence reprinted, it's naturate the lawyers would be want to minimize liability-- however unlikely. But the net result of it all is that, on this specific instance, Wikitruth is where you have to go if you want to read the truth about why !! was banned-- and I think that's a bad thing for the project, because it leads to the believe that those sites are truthful in general)
Alec