Quote Originally Posted by Jasdoif View Post
While the rules don't spell out the process for removing an entry, I do believe that a desire to remove an entry constitutes disagreement about its inclusion, so F3 and F4 would apply.

And F3 says the curator can't fully reject a comment's inclusion. Which is what me removing a comment (like any comment made in the Geekademia transcript) without consensus would be. Even if the intent was to remove something not in accordance with the other rules, it would still be a violation of F3 for me to do so without establishing consensus.

So I'd have to break a rule to enforce a rule. It's a little unusual, but I think F3 reinforces that the curator is supposed to be a facilitator, and not a final judge. And being able to freely reject an entry after its inclusion would make any restrictions about rejecting them before their inclusion meaningless.
But in any case I wouldn't say you would remove it (and certainly not freely), but you are forced to do it by the rules. Which have an established consensus.

If for example if there is (for whatever reason) a quote "I like Italian food" in the Index, I think it should be removed without any voting/consensus needed. Because it violates the rules. The rules mostly (A-E) covers which content is allowed/not allowed in the Index, while rule F covers how we reach consensus when something isn't clear, but not to override the other rules. I think in the case if for example most posters start wanting to include "I like Italian food"-quotes, I think we shouldn't do that because of rule F allows it, but we should amend rule B to allow "I like Italian food"-quotes. And without amending rule B there shouldn't any such quote listed whether or not the majority wants it or not. (But if the majority wants it we should seriously considering changing the rules.)

That at least is my opinion on it. [Which might be a bit based on my logical reasoning, but any other procedure would make absolutely no sense to me.] But I think maybe that it is better not to focus on that, since unless there are problems I think it isn't really worthwhile to spend time on such rule detail shenanigans.


At least we should get to some sort of consensus how to deal with such Q&A in general (can we include them at all? Right now it is only kinda there because it is there. But from the rules it is kinda dubious if it should even be there), and I think your amended Rule G (specifying that they will go after the regular Index) is exactly what we should have. (Or if people don't like it we should establish a rule that this is outside the scope of this thread and get rid of the Geekademia Interview.)

Since I haven't heard anyone saying "we should remove the Interview", I think we don't need any further discussion if we add that rule (which I have the feeling right now that it will be easy to add). After that we can revisit the Twitter Q&A discussion [or we can just add that to the vote options and make it in one sweep].


Also while we're at it, I think there should be a link to the podcast (and not only to highlight Rule A, but also to give proper credit to all involved): Link to Geekademia Interview. (Sure there is a link at the end of the transcript, but it is kinda burried and only points to the general Geekademia Page, but doesn't help finding the actual Interview.)


[And if you think it is better to wait after the hiatus ends to do the voting, I don't have a problem with waiting. As long as this gets resolved sometime]