> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: >> The Roth situation was WP between a rock (celeb culture with its >> ohmigod >> you dissed X) and a hard place (academic credibility requires that, >> yes, >> you do require verifiable additions and don't accept argument from >> authority). It would tend to illustrate that celeb power can >> potentially be >> deployed against serious discourse. Countervailing "admin power" is >> always >> a questionable analysis. > > If someone who could reasonably be seen as speaking for Wikipedia told > him > that Wikipedia needed secondary sources for his claim, they are wrong, > and > Wikipedia failed. > > It completely misses the point to explain how Wikipedia's actual policies > are > reasonable. The policy that Roth was told about is not reasonable; if it > doesn't match Wikipedia's actual policy, he shouldn't be expected to > figure > that out.
What is our actual policy? What should he have been told, and how? Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
