On 4/19/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Don't get fixated on the admin power abuse thing.
It is merely a
convenient method and sign of who they have on their side. They could
do it just as easily through database dumps, or spidering CFD/AFD, or
scaping mirrors, or... You see what I'm getting at? Frankly, the CC
GFDL issue aside, I find it kinda amusing we're all so horrified at
seeing some of our content (for better or worse) on other websites.
They're the one hosting it; no moral blame descends on us for at one
time making a mistake, rectifying it, and then keeping records in case
our rectification was a mistake. But I think I've posted enough in
this thread, so good night.
It's not the fact that they've obtained the deleted material per se.
As you point out, they could have gotten it by other means; and the
material itself, in this case, isn't particularly impressive.
My concern is more to the "sign of who they have on their side"
aspect. The Wikipedia admin model works to a great extent because
admins can be trusted not to harm the project. Here we have evidence
-- circumstantial and not very specific, but nevertheless quite
damning -- that one or more admins _are_ clearly attempting to harm
Wikipedia. I would argue that this is a bad thing regardless of
whether they've actually damaged anything yet.
Kirill Lokshin