-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org>
wrote:
geni stated for the record:
So no action against those who vote to keep stuff
that should be
deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.
--
geni
No, no action. An erroneous "keep" is harms no one, since copyvios,
attacks and libel, and similar damaging material are not subject to
Votes for Deletion.
Have you ever tried to bring up issues of copyright violation on AFD?
I have. I got kinda outvoted (to be fair the subject was to do with
schools).
Hoaxes are subject to AFD. Are you going to claim that voteing to keep
them does no damage?
--
geni
Good point. Allow me to modify my proposal accordingly: anyone whose
vote shows a culpable lack of elementary research should be penalized.
This would include both those who deleted Jimbo's example that began
this discussion, and those who /carelessly/ vote "keep" on fraudulent
material.
Note that in both cases "I did my research but that was too subtle"
ought to be considered as a defense. For example, both "okay, so he's
genuinely notable in Kyrgyzstan, but I don't read Kyrgyzyse and that's
the only language he's been published in" and "okay, so it's a hoax,
but
numerous credentialed scientists were also taken in" would be considered
as mitigating factors by the Review Board.
- --
Sean Barrett | I'm not a hero! I'm just an actor with a gun
sean(a)epoptic.org | who's lost his motivation. --Bruce Baxter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD0TnHMAt1wyd9d+URAseDAJ9IgyPAbgUb/xktBLnQZ18//pU8QwCdEa98
Psz2Wz6vtfaFz4O6eZCiDyU=
=alEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----