G'day Molu,
[top-posting fixed. Again.]
On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Joseph Hiegel
wrote:
Yesterday a user posted to ANI requesting that
excisions be made
from the >edit history of a biographical article in order that
information troubling to the >subject should be removed.
We can't do that really. Just drop the person a polite note
explaining that while we respect his right to privacy, we are an
encyclopedia and it's our job to provide information. It is
unfortunately not possible for us to remove verifiable information
based on such considerations. This is a sensitive issue and care
needs to be taken. But ultimately, we really can't put the interests
of the subject over those of the encyclopedia.
Nonsense. If there is an edit, which is soundly rejected, and which
contains objectionable material, there's nothing wrong with deleting
that edit from the history.
We should not be removing things from the article merely because the
subject doesn't want them said. However, if we agree that something
should not be said, and the subject wants it removed from the history
... so be it. Imagine if we had caught the Siegenthaler (have I spelled
it right yet?) vandalism quickly, and reverted it ... then Mr
Siegenthaler came across the article later and read through the history,
and asked that we delete particularly disturbing cases of vandalism.
There is nothing wrong with that.
If this is not such a case, weeeell, we can't help him. But "we don't
do that sort of thing" is wrong, both in theory and practice.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse