2009/1/8 Mike Godwin <[email protected]>: > > Thomas Dalton writes: > >> I guess if you leave it up to the editor to do it themselves, it could >> work, although it would still require someone to go along after them >> fixing the mess that would inevitably result from removing random >> chunks from the middle of articles. There would also be disputes over >> how much should be removed - can you remove a word because you >> corrected the spelling of it? (probably not) can you remove an entire >> sentence because it's an expansion of a sentence that you wrote? >> (probably, since there isn't an alternative, but that's going to >> really piss off the person that did all the work expanding it) And >> then you have to deal with disputes over whether the text that is put >> in to replace the removed chunks is sufficiently different so as not >> to infringe on the editor's copyright. I think it would end up being a >> lot of work for more than just the editor in question. > > I agree with you that an editor who chooses to remove some large > number of minor edits is going to be quite disruptive, but I think it > goes without saying that some very tiny minority of editors is quite > willing to be disruptive and antisocial in order to score to (a) > vindicate their perceived rights or (b) (and less charitably) to score > an ideological point. > > I hope it is not news to anyone here that some (very tiny) fraction of > editors values making a point over making information freely available > to the world.
Very true. That's not a reason to support them in doing so, though. Do you think there is a legal requirement for us to allow people to opt-out, or are you just suggesting doing so as an act of good faith? I'm not sure I have enough good faith to let someone mess up a large portion of the encyclopaedia... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
