On 24 Feb 2010, at 18:15, Risker wrote:
As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can
tell you
that, while
some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially
libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable
for public
consumption. The suppressions met the criteria for removal from
view to
everyone, including administrators.
Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we
have the
technical ability to do so without creating problems in the
database and (b)
there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for
potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a
significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees
(particularly in regard to living persons) such as "X is a f***ing
a**hole",
and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s
subject
such as "X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be
reverted,
while the latter qualifies for suppression.
I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per
normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators?
Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for
this sort of thing?
I can see the need for oversight when there is truly problematic and
confidential information that is posted, but this example does not
meet my standards for that (unless lawyers were involved).
(Disclaimer: I am an admin on en.wp.)
User:Mike_Peel