[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[Charlotte Webb]

On 11/28/07, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> As others have pointed out, the five editors she discussed it with may
> not even realize themselves who they are, because Durova may have
> mistaken no objections for positive feedback  -- or she may have
> thought that feedback about her case study was the same as feedback
> about a block. So the implication that there are five editors somewhere
> in hiding, letting Durova face the music alone, misses the point that
> they may have said X, but Durova heard Y. There is therefore no point
> in conducting a witchhunt.

For once, Slim, I hope one of your explanations is correct. Of course nobody will really know for sure unless they have a generally accurate idea as to what, if anything, was actually said.

If there are "copyright issues", it can all be paraphrased. If the other parties have privacy concerns, their names can be omitted. If there is sensitive information about the user being discussed, it can be replaced with placeholders as appropriate. Maybe the hypothetical finished product, like many "de-classified" documents, would be 90% blacked out. Not a big deal, as the only salient part would be whether the prospect of blocking was ever actually mentioned.

Unfortunately this overlooks the fact that said documents (if they exist), being digital, can be modified to no end, and with impunity if there were no original copies to compare against.

—C.W.