maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
This is where the divide seems to hit. Those who work
in the
Foundation Office, and receive complaints from the outside world, tend
to have a harsher view of things, arguing that all unsourced
statements about living people, for instance, should be immediately
removed. Those who do a lot of editing without hearing from the
outside world tend to find this position untenable and impractical.
Worse, they (we?) tend to just ignore it, since the number of people
advocating it is tiny, and they haven't really made much significant
noise about it yet.
I'm yet to see any meaningful common ground found between these
positions, but I'm optimistic we can find a solution.
Steve
>There's plenty of common ground- this is an
immediatist/eventualist
>split, after all, and we all know that one day the Immediate moment
>will have become the eventual. (In other words, as time passes and
>articles improve, this issue will become less and less important until
>it only makes sense in rare individual articles). ~maru
That actually sounds feasible. I would advocate that spoilers be removed from all
articles save for ones that had not been fully released to the public, such as a video
game in development. I really only think that's when it wouldn't be silly. - Zero
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.