Overall, good. I'll also be blunt: the 'experiment' speculation at the end handed her a very strong close for the end of the interview. Everyone's a critic (and these things are so much easier to second guess after the fact), yet if another interview such as this comes up it would make a stronger finish to wonder how many other websites had been blocked by this organization's dubious assessments without appeal, and ask whether they're really qualified to play nanny to the public.
-Durova On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some > > unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for > > any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted > > it to their tip box a few days ago. > > The idea that they've blocked Wikipedia but not Amazon because Amazon > has more lawyers sounds pretty plausible to me (what else could they > mean by "pragmatic"?). I thought the bit about it being an experiment > sounded rather unlikely, I think it's far more likely that they just > didn't think about what they were doing and have now got themselves > stuck in a corner. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
