QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:28am)
I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.
While I regret the ugly politics that have surfaced in the wake of this case, I am gratified that, at long last, more responsible and professional admins have become aware of the problem and lent their weight and their good offices to correcting it. In due course, I hope to be able to identify and thank each of the responsible editors and admins who (better late than never) stepped up to the challenge of doing the right thing here.
There is much more work to do. The Picard bio was just the tip of the iceberg for me. There is also the similar
biography of James Tour, who was also featured in that same NYT story. The same undue weight and coatrack issues apply there, as well.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 6th May 2008, 2:37am)
I was impressed! (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance.
Yes. What Kim Bruning and Ottava Rima pulled off yesterday was nothing short of a miracle.
But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.
This post has been edited by Moulton: