Sat 1st November 2008, 8:30pm
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 29th October 2008, 11:47pm)
We haven't yet mentioned the fact that Durova STILL hasn't retracted or apologized for that deliberately misleading and defamatory comment about Kohs, after the Brian Bergstein interview.
Both Durova and Greg have since pointed out this ultra-fabulous edit
, in which Durova deleted all of the material in question, replacing the entries with the word "redacted."
I'll admit, this is better than nothing - but as the word implies, it's a redaction,
not a retraction, and of course no apology was involved. (Just by way of example, I might state that I think Joe Schmoe is a "jerk," but unless I later say that I was wrong to think that Joe Schmoe was a jerk, and that he in fact is not
a jerk, then I haven't actually retracted
the original statement, regardless of whether or not I delete it from whatever website I originally posted it to. People therefore remain free to believe that I still think Joe Schmoe is a jerk, because, let's face it, I probably do.)
Now, it may be that Durova has a legitimate reason to feel that a retraction would have been inappropriate - perhaps something of a position-reinforcing nature was told to her in confidence that she feels she can't, or shouldn't, repeat in public. I don't believe that's a viable excuse, though, but it's just one theory out of many possibles.
So, you take what you can get from the Wikipedia folks... And Greg seems to have at least been mollified somewhat by the redaction edit, so that's something, I guess.