Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Or maybe he just wants Wikipedia to stop calling itself
an encyclopedia
(because it's really just a common carrier - an ISP). I could
actually see his point there, though I'm not sure if I agree and it's
almost definitely not going to happen anyway. Either way, if his only
beef is with Wikipedia then why include the other two paragraphs about
anonymity and lack of legal recourse.
Anthony
Because he is a big thinker. As he points out laws can change. Also new legal
precedents are possible. Is an Internet wiki encyclopedia different enough from other
types of media or publishers to require new laws or interpretation?
This man is not a Wikipedia enemy. Did he overreact? Maybe. Very likely it was a case of
the straw that broke the camels back. A generational issue, too.
In the long run, his feedback will help us more than hurt us.
Sydney
--