Anthere wrote:
I do not like anymore than you the idea of altering
history. But I
feel that if someone can sue us due to lies being on Wikipedia, it is
worth doing it. It is not only a legal perspective. It is only
showing readers that we have a certain ethic, and that if someone
says the worse crap on them, we will try to restore the truth rather
than propagating it.
That's already been accomplished by removing the comment from the page.
For the record, I do not appreciate at all the term
"whim" applied to
my request, nor the qualification of morally repugnant, Brion. I
understand you do not like doing this, but it is a very very very
poor feedback for the pain and time I spent with Izwalito case.
I would not consider it your whim, but rather the whim of some company
which would prefer to make threats against third parties about a
negative comment on an internet forum, which has already been relegated
to the depths of the edit history of a discussion page.
What exactly is at issue here? For what would we throw away our
independence and editorial integrity? Even if it were easy to do, there
would need to be some very serious problem at hand to even consider it.
I have to assume there's something *very serious* at issue, but I'm not
at all sure what it is. Maybe it's just that it's very late and I'm not
a native speaker, but I can't imagine what in that paragraph would be
considered actionable under any circumstances; mostly it's a terminology
dispute between editors, and also someone apparently isn't too impressed
by this company's web design.
So what? What am I missing?
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)