I raised this a while back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University was office
protected. Editors had gathered some well-cited material, Jimbo said
go ahead and rewrite, so we did. It got hacked back again. I don't
have a problem with this, as Brad has now old us what the concern was,
and we can work with that. I do have a problem with a couple of
elements of process:
* The problem was not communicated until after the event, resulting in
another pissed-off phone call to Brad which could have been avoided.
* I was told the new version was not "cleared with foundation" but no
mechanism exists for doing that, else I would have done so.
* Brad (or Danny or Jimbo) does not scale. People get impatient when
months go by with no explanation of why we cannot say something which
is, or appears to be, verifiably true. This was a particular problem
with the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost.
So what should be the process for getting foundation approval for a
rewrite where an article subject has made a complaint causing
protection, and how can we ensure that the substance of the complaint
is communicated (to the extent possible without compromising the
various parties)?
Is it possible to facilitate communication direct with the parties
where errors of fact are the problem, to let them know in advance when
changes are to be made?
And where an external source (in this case Bear's Guide) says that two
institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and
no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are
different, how do we go about validating that? It's all very well for
them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG