[WikiEN-l] Slashdot article

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/29/2008 7:46:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  
arromdee at rahul.net writes:

So  you're seriously suggesting that the line about him being a director
should  *not* have been removed, even though there was no source for it and
he  sincerely objected to it?>>


----------------
You're overstating the issue.  The entire article has no  footnotes.  Or 
rather, the article has no footnotes.
 
So we cannot know that "there was no source for it".
The most we can say is that we "do not know certainly which, if any, source  
was used for it."
 
And "HE" did not object.  That's the crux of the point.
We do not know who the editor who objected was, simply because we cannot  
know.
Self-identified editors get no special priveledges.
 
Why are we still going in circles here?
We do not, as a matter of course, remove statements simply based on  
anonymous objections.
We remove then, consistent with our practice, as stated, under certain  
circumstances.
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals! 
(http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)