News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/30 Risker <risker.wp@...>:

> 2009/6/30 geni <geniice@...>
>
>> 2009/6/30 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>:
>> > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
>> > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
>> > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
>> > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
>> > wikipedia.
>>
>> Of course that would create the problem that we would be taking the
>> position that more notable people are somehow more deserving of
>> protection.
>>
>> --
>>
> Um, no. The less notable don't have articles, so we have nothing to
> contribute there.

Remove X bit of information that has not been previously widely
published or random kidnapped tourist dies.

But of course we don't have an article on random kidnapped tourist.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Durova wrote:

> Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
> the slippery slope of censorship.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>  
>> On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote:
>>    
>>> Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
>>> causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely, when
>>>      
>>> a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be more
>>> careful rather than less careful
>>>      
>> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
>> to be codified.
>>
>> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
>> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
>> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
>> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
>> wikipedia.
>>    

If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the
already contentious BLP arena.  Endangering lives can apply just as
easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies
at all in the first place.

If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan
news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the
first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes
another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for
determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source.  What will
be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go
through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources
of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news
consumption?  What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely
because they support our preconceptions?

If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we
are so important that our reporting will make any difference.  If we are
smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of
Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest
that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves.  Do we
apply the policy even-handedly?  Doing so would require treating a
Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same
respect as a Western life.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Gwern Branwen wrote:
> Sure, he may have 'thought' he had convinced them to let him go, but
> that conviction is worth about as far as one can throw it; I remember
> hearing that the Vietnamese and Iranian hostage takers liked to taunt
> their prisoners in a similar manner.
>
>  
...not to mention techniques used by Western military interrogators.


Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

I absolutely support treating the life of a Talib with comparable respect.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:

> Durova wrote:
> > Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step
> upon
> > the slippery slope of censorship.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> >
> >> On 30/06/2009, Durova wrote:
> >>
> >>> Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> >>> causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely,
> when
> >>>
> >>> a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be
> more
> >>> careful rather than less careful
> >>>
> >> Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> >> to be codified.
> >>
> >> Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> >> endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> >> be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> >> a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> >> wikipedia.
> >>
> If this is to be codified that could begin by taking it out of the
> already contentious BLP arena.  Endangering lives can apply just as
> easily to individuals about whom we would not otherwise have biographies
> at all in the first place.
>
> If the information was already published by an Italian and an Afghan
> news agency, one can hardly say that Wikipedia was publishing it for the
> first time. The whole reliable sources argument too easily becomes
> another way of pushing a POV when there are no guidelines whatsoever for
> determining ahead of time what is or isn't a reliable source.  What will
> be reliable in an era of citizen journalism when reports do not go
> through the filter of paid editorial staff, and the traditional sources
> of original news are no longer consistent with the economics of news
> consumption?  What makes tweets out of Tehran reliable? Is it merely
> because they support our preconceptions?
>
> If saving lives is the issue where do we get the arrogant idea that we
> are so important that our reporting will make any difference.  If we are
> smart enough to suspect that a person from Montreal with the name of
> Hechtman might be Jewish, it underestimates the Taliban enemy to suggest
> that they would not be able to figure that out for themselves.  Do we
> apply the policy even-handedly?  Doing so would require treating a
> Taliban life, or that of his innocent family member, with the same
> respect as a Western life.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Gwern Branwen wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
>  
>> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
>> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
>> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
>> value if executed).
>>    
> I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that
> has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security &
> taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say
> anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.
>
>  

Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other
great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know
it.  I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of
cost/benefit analysis.  Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be
far more effective at saving more lives.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>
>  
I guess you just have to "trust them" in the same way you would any
other politician.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Matt Jacobs-2]

There's a second challenge, in that we don't want to confirm information we
are avoiding releasing by replying with, "Shhh. This is being kept quiet."
As I'm sure most here realize, various idiots will then spread such a
response all over Digg and various blogs, therefore defeating the original
purpose.  If they use a unique or unusual response, it's not going to work
as well as just saying the source is unreliable.

Stating that the source was unreliable was actually probably the most
effective route.  I dislike the fact that this was very top-down and the
response was misleading, but would OTRS really have been more effective?

Sxeptomaniac

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:30:04 -0700

> From: Durova
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
>
> Agreed.  The challenge is to codify this in a manner that doesn't step upon
> the slippery slope of censorship.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...
> >wrote:
>
> > On 30/06/2009, Durova <nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
> > > Our usual BLP standards demonstrate respect for unwarranted damage that
> > > causes hurt feelings, or professional and community standing.  Surely,
> > when
> > > a human life may reasonably be at stake, our responsibility is to be
> more
> > > careful rather than less careful
> >
> > Interestingly, that isn't currently part of WP:BLP. I think it needs
> > to be codified.
> >
> > Clearly, when the subject of the BLP's life may be significantly
> > endangered, through no fault of their own, from information that may
> > be widely published for the first time in the wikipedia, then there's
> > a very reasonable case that it shouldn't be published in the
> > wikipedia.
> >
> > > -Durova
> >
> > --
> > -Ian Woollard
> >
> > "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@...
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://durova.blogspot.com/
>
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

Was there rationale given for the stifling ?  That's the issue.  If it's
reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
given for why?





**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

Or since reporting on people and events can have negative effects in
general including death, are we now not to report on people and events if those
effects are negative toward us or ours?  But it's evidently OK using the NYT
double-standard to report on them if they are negative toward "the other".

Will




**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

Ethical problems in the RW are decided not by abstract principles but
of what actual people do, and we are inevitably influenced by our
social situation. Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming
others.  The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking
it for granted.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> Or since reporting on people and events can have negative effects in
> general including death, are we now not to report on people and events if those
> effects are negative toward us or ours?  But it's evidently OK using the NYT
> double-standard to report on them if they are negative toward "the other".
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodmanny@... writes:


> Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
> like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
> individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
> when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming
> others.  The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking
> it for granted.>>
>

-----------------

Which parts of the above are you advocating?

Will





**************
Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@...> wrote:

> Ian Woollard wrote:
>> I'm also left wondering whether there are any other similar things
>> going on, either temporary activities, or extended ones; or whether
>> there have been in the past. If administrators do things, how is a
>> user supposed to know that they're doing it for a sensible reason,
>> rather than some less savoury purpose?
>>
>
> I guess you just have to "trust them" in the same way you would any
> other politician.

Standard policy on-wiki is that administrators have to be willing to
explain and justify their actions.  OTRS is a venue for being somewhat
opaque; office is a venue for being more opaque.

Issues which rise to this level should presumably be handed to OTRS
and/or office - if they're that sensitive, the normal administrator
pool is not well enough known and trusted, and fundamentally don't
have appropriate private channels to discuss and decide on what to do.

If random administrators start playing cowboy on issues like this,
it's not helping anyone.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list?  This is not an abstract
referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a
discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim.  To
the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards
the safety and fate of others like him.

Wikipedians have tangible editorial and policy responsibilities regarding
the latter.  The former is tangential politics.  It is best to keep these
matters separate.

-Durova

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:

> Gwern Branwen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> >
> >> It would raise his profile, indicate that Western media had taken
> >> notice of the kidnapping, and therefore raise his value to the
> >> kidnappers (either his value as a negotiating chip or his symbolic
> >> value if executed).
> >>
> > I don't buy this thinking. This is the sort of wooly-headed stuff that
> > has us throwing billions down the black hole of Homeland Security &
> > taking off our shoes at airports. 'security experts' will say
> > anything; I don't trust them unless they're Bruce Schneier.
> >
> >
> Fear is one of the great motivators, and those (motivated by the other
> great motivator, greed) making big money out of Homeland Security know
> it.  I doubt that their antics would stand up to any kind of
> cost/benefit analysis.  Smaller amounts spent in other areas would be
> far more effective at saving more lives.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Goodman]

I am not advocating, but trying to explain.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM, <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 6/30/2009 11:21:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> dgoodmanny@... writes:
>
>
>> Most (or almost all) people would enforce a rule
>> like do no harm much more strongly when the harm is to named
>> individuals whom they are aware of , and who are similar to them, and
>> when they judge the person involved as not being guilty of harming
>> others.  The current statement of BLP ignores this, presumably taking
>> it for granted.>>
>>
>
> -----------------
>
> Which parts of the above are you advocating?
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the
> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

stevertigo<stvrtg@...> wrote:

> > 1) Rohde's experience in reporting the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims by
> > Serbian Christians may have drawn sympathy and support from Muslim
> > officials
>

George Herbert <george.herbert@...> Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM,
wrote:


> The NY Times presumably analyzed that, talked it over with security
> professionals in government and private employ, and decided against
> it.  They have correspondents abroad in danger areas, and have had
> them kidnapped before.
>
> I think they know better than Wikipedians - though I do not presume
> they know perfect.
>

What's would make us "presume" that they know better? In fact your'e
comparing the management of a small newspaper to the staff of a very large
encyclopedia. It appears that you give great credit to management.

> 2) Not publishing the story and then creating an issue after the fact,
> makes
> > such tactics unlikely to be successful in the future.
>
> You're assuming that terrorists and professional kidnappers in the
> hinterland of Afghanistan have networks that include sophisticated
> Wikipedia and web history analysis experts.  This is true for some
> organizations - but not many.  The level of ignorance of advanced
> information sources is suprising even among groups that use some
> advanced high-tech tools such as websites and encrypted internet
> communications.

And thus, if they have not the Google, nor the Wikipedia, why then black
them out?

That this was done in one case does not mean it won't work again.
> Most intelligence gathering methods remain useful for quite a while
> after they're generally disclosed.


[Citation needed]


> Government intelligence agency and
> military targets harden rapidly, others tend to learn slowly.
>

Seems this can be abstracted a bit to general social cognition concepts and
might remain true. But abstraction will probably reveal different dimensions
to the concept that you have perhaps "hardened" into a idea about government
intelligence.

A near-contradiction of terms, by the way.

> 3) Are the participating Western news orgs, just like the previous U.S.
> > administration, now to consider Al Jazeera as hostile? Or perhaps as an
> > organization that does not follow the same professional standards that
> > Western news orgs claim to follow?
>


> I don't know of anyone who feels Al Jazeera is hostile.


The point being that it draws a seriously subjective distinction between
certain news orgs and others, in as far as how they deal with
extra-journalistic modes of operation that overlap or circumuvent journalism
itself.

Ostensibly, blacking out reportage of war crimes also "saves lives" too --
not the lives of the people in the conflict, but the lives of the soldiers
who happen to be associated with the hellbound jerks who committed the
crimes. The continued blackout of Iraq abuse photos qualifies. In reality
its a bit subjective. Not that anyone wants to actually see the photos --
its just that censorship of evidence of factual events deviates from our
understanding of human history.

Just to correct Mark (?) Al Jazeera at first did report it, but then joined
the blackout after being contacted by NYT.  An archived version of Al
Jazeera's story would have sufficed as a source, and bypassed their
blackout. This is all trying to deal a bit with Wales' point that if a less
illegitimate news source reported it, keeping it under wraps would have been
difficult. The real criticism here is not that they made the wrong call, but
that they appear to be attributing to their own cunning and skill what
better may be attributable to plain good-old good luck.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

> George wrote:

> My hopefully enlightened perspective is that the rise of middle
> eastern based honest modern newsgathering will be a major part of the
> ultimate enlightened modernistic muslim refutation of the reactionary
> islamic terrorists.  I think Al Jazeera's staff see themselves that
> way and I hope and think that they're right.
>

The first thing that Muslim world news orgs would have to do in that regard
is to stop calling terrorists "jihadis" or "jihadist organizations."  Both
Muslim and Western world sources use "jihad" incorrectly in reference to
Islamic terrorism:

1) In Muslim context, the word "jihad" has positive meaning.The word
"muharib" or "hirabis" on the other hand connote barbarianism, piracy,
vandalism, and uncleanliness (spiritual) etc. (AIUI).

2) The West in fact uses "jihad" in an ironic way -- to highlight
Muslim-world conventional usage of the term as being supportive and even
praising of murder.

Hence there is a sort of a dualistic game going on wherein both sides are
abusive of the terminology.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Durova wrote:
> Is it possible to call foul at this mailing list?  This is not an abstract
> referendum about the George W. Bush administration policies; it's a
> discussion that regards the physical safety of one kidnapping victim.  To
> the extent that this victim's circumstances can be generalized, it regards
> the safety and fate of others like him.

1) There were ways to suppress the information without breaking Wikipedia
rules, such as OFFICE.  It could be argued that this still endangers lives,
but to a *much* smaller degree.
2) In most cases (and in pretty much all cases which don't involve a
well-connected person) we wouldn't suppress the information to protect
lives--we'd publish it.  The exact same arguments that are used here would
be considered speculative and lacking in proof if anyone else tried them.
3) Giving in to kidnappers like this could help one person, but endanger the
safety of more people in the future.  It's like how paying ransom can save
a person, but also makes it more likely kidnappers would kidnap more people.
What do we do if terrorists learn from this and start making other demands
on us?


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/6/30 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>:

> The trick is that an OTRS ticket is a policy compliant item tells you
> that there's an official thing happening without revealing what it is;
> the chance of it being a cabal is then low, and most sensible editors
> will back-off.

> That wasn't the problem here. The source was probably more or less
> sufficiently reliable that it shouldn't have been removed on those
> grounds. So the admins were essentially lying to the editor. IMO
> that's the real problem, and the anonymous editor was actually
> behaving quite normally and fairly reasonably.

Yeah. I think in many ways that we're seeing a case here of a fairly
reasonable judgement call being defended by quite slipshod means. (I
could see myself having done the same thing). If we had people more
confident to *say* "this is a judgement call, there are Serious
Things", and a community more willing to trust established users to
say that and not be playing tricks...

...well, we'd have a different community. But it'd be one where this
sort of situation would be more likely to play out without abuse of
"the rules" to get the intended result.

I guess, as you note above, we could probably see more use of OTRS in
a future situation; a way to note that the problem's been looked at by
someone generally-trusted, that there's something that probably
shouldn't be poked too hard, and please could people leave it there or
ask discreetly for details.

This is, on the other hand, not something that has historically proved
popular to codify. Hmm.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/6/30  <WJhonson@...>:

> Was there rationale given for the stifling ?  That's the issue.  If it's
> reported in Al Jazeera and stifled on Wikipedia is there some explanation
> given for why?


You keep saying it was reported by Al Jazeera. It wasn't.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ron Ritzman]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@...> wrote:

>> It would have been much better if it was officially an office action.

> Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet.

In this situation, perhaps it was thought it would work better if it
looked like just another "wiki squabble" over sources. We have plenty
of those but "office actions" are rare.

"Hey, those idiots at Wikipedia can't even decide on whether or not
this kidnapping's notable. He's just a shmoe, let him go".

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l