On 17 April 2014 16:25, Michael Snow <wikipe...@frontier.com> wrote: > To illustrate how silly this can get on some level, consider the fact that > justifiably or not, the media and the general public often treat the content > of Wikimedia projects as if it reflects on the reputation of the Wikimedia > Foundation. Thus when "broadly construed", any edit to any article could in > a sense be charged with a conflict of interest because it's an effort to > make the Wikimedia Foundation look better. So basically staff would not be > allowed to edit at all, and the second part of this policy would amount to > no more than a limited exception under which all edits have to be made, or > at the very least vetted, by the legal department. > That in turn would lead to an atmosphere in which staff edits must be > considered authoritative and cannot be challenged or altered by the > community, which I really don't think is the direction we should go. The > occasional deference Pete was concerned about is already a distortion of the > normal editing dynamic, and not something we want to try and spread more > widely.
We also have ample real-world evidence that there is literally no limit to the querulousness of banned users. Going to great effort to carefully craft a stick for them to wield strikes me as not a productive pastime. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
