27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 83:
Line 83: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→From Joel: new section
For ICANNWiki content, please keep in mind that the site strives to present information from a Neutral Point of View. So the fact that there is a legal dispute is fine information to be shown on the site, but it must be presented fairly and without bias. It should not be the opinion of just one side or the other. If there is a result from the case, that is fine to document as well. Secondly, it doesn’t make sense for content to be repeated on the site. So copying the same exact information and pasting It to multiple page junks up the site and is unnecessary. Hence we will remove duplicate content and try to show it where it makes most sense. If there is contentious content, then it is best to cite outside credible references. I hope this makes sense. [[User:Ray|Ray]] ([[User talk:Ray|talk]])
For ICANNWiki content, please keep in mind that the site strives to present information from a Neutral Point of View. So the fact that there is a legal dispute is fine information to be shown on the site, but it must be presented fairly and without bias. It should not be the opinion of just one side or the other. If there is a result from the case, that is fine to document as well. Secondly, it doesn’t make sense for content to be repeated on the site. So copying the same exact information and pasting It to multiple page junks up the site and is unnecessary. Hence we will remove duplicate content and try to show it where it makes most sense. If there is contentious content, then it is best to cite outside credible references. I hope this makes sense. [[User:Ray|Ray]] ([[User talk:Ray|talk]])
== From Joel ==
Hi Ray
I was just wondering what part of my content you felt was not neutral? The only thing I can think of is that a writ of summons had been uploaded instead of the actual Statement of Claim for the one of the lawsuits against Edmon, but that doesn't mean that my statement was false or biased, or that a lawsuit had not been filed. (Edmon himself is keenly aware of this lawsuit as this occurred in early 2020 and Edmon has already filed a response to this lawsuit, admitting fault, and agreeing to issue shares in Namesphere that should have been issued way back in 2012).
Please note that I am an advocate of having the truth and the whole truth out there. If you take a look at my ICANNWiki entry, there is a reference to a complaint filed against DotPH that was dismissed way back in 2001 WITH PREJUDICE. I chose to keep this false accusation in ICANNWiki, rather than edit it out, even though 19 years have passed and this charge is now obsolete. I believe the truth will out, and I am sure as the guy behind ICANNWiki, you feel the same way.
What I don't understand is the plastic surgery done to Edmon Chung's page so that it contains no reference to the 3 lawsuits facing him. These lawsuits have been filed against both Edmon Chung and DotAsia. The lawsuits cover the same transgressions, but the charges against Edmon and the charges against DotAsia are separate. It is technically possible that the suit against DotAsia may be dismissed (although Unlikely), while the suit against Edmon may not.
So I think it is only proper that the reference to the lawsuit should appear on both the DotAsia page and the Edmon Chung page.