On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote: > >> > It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is > >> > harmful > >> > are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New > >> > York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a > >> > WP:OFFICE. > >> Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent > >> significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not > >> likely to react to well to any attempted removal. > > > > If the New York Times had claimed the information is harmful, Jimbo would > > have > > deleted the information much earlier--no editor would have gotten a *chance* > > to spend a significant amount of time defending it. You don't get editors > > investing a lot of time if you make the deletion a fait accompli before a > > lot > > of time has passed. > Jimbo isn't a commons admin.
Huh? Did I ever say he was? The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a fait accompli.) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
