[WikiEN-l] Slashdot article

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/28/2008 2:54:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
snowspinner at gmail.com writes:

But on  the other hand, Lanier's edits to the wiki should  
have been  sufficient cause to look at the claims and fix the article.  
That the  article went un-fixed after his edits is  inexcusable.>>


----------------------
No body was stopping you Phil from doing so.
There is no big brother here, who evaluates all unsubstatiated claims made  
to talk space or edits to article space.  Lanier (or somebody claiming to  be 
him) made edits, claiming to be him.  They were rightly reverted, based  on the 
Good Faith we give to original editors that they are properly citing  their 
sources.
 
His claim to be the subject should not color our view to remove  non-negative 
claims merely based on unsubstantiated claims that they are  inaccurate.  
That would be a giant leap in our BLP methodology.
 
On the other hand, should you wish to form an action-patrol to do just this  
thing, then go ahead and see how it goes.  I feel no compulsion to act on  
unsourced claims (or claims of bad sourcing) by anonymous editors VIS A VIS  good 
faith that previous editors did a good job writing up their sources.
 
Will Johnson
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, 
no registration required and great graphics – check it out! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)