On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the > Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered > application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for > our credibility when a very respected journal, The Chronicle of Higher > Education, features an op-ed that outlines, in very convincing detail, > what happens when a subject-matter expert attempts to play the rules > and is still slapped down. If I thought this author's experience is > rare, I wouldn't be troubled by it. But as someone who frequently > fielded complaints from folks who were not tendentious kooks, my > impression is that it is not rare, and that the language of UNDUE -- > as it exists today -- ends up being leveraged in a way that hurts > Wikipedia both informationally and reputationally. > Do you have specific ideas either as to what is wrong with the current language, or what it should be changed to say? Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
