On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every
administrator.
1000 people? That's an absurdly large group. As it is there are administrators digging up deleted articles and posting them on other websites.
This isn't about publishing deleted articles.
No, it's about reliability of admins when it comes to deleted information.
Beyond that, the censored log should be available to everyone. Administrators often have more than enough to do and any
assistance
non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
No, the log should not be available to everyone. I can't see what possible good that could come from it, and the log itself could be used to reveal the very kinds of things it is intended to conceal (e.g. personal information).
It's good to have the largest practical group able to examine our actions. That increases the chance that enough people will take an interest and provide effective questioning of actions.
Right, and that group consists of around 20 highly trusted editors. That's the largest *practical* number. 1000 is a completely impractical number that will significantly raise the risks of doing damage.
Removing the page isn't close to sufficient - it conceals what is perhaps the most significant part of what is being overseen: who
is
doing what, where and still concealed from most, why.
What's the danger here? What horrible thing will happen if some
edit
disappears from the history?
Nothing harmful at all will happen if all the actions are in accord with policy.
And what harm will happen if the actions are not in accord with policy?
If someone uses the capability to hide edits that are uncomplimentary to them or simply make a project look bad in a news story, when the project did actually have a problem then that would be an entirely different and problematic mater.
Huh? You mean in an article about themselves? And how could they make the project look bad in a news story?
Things like "we screwed up" or "yes, that was a bad edit" aren't what this capability is for. Oversight is about making sure that the capability isn't misused in this sort of way, however much we all want to be perfect and might be tempted to try to look better than we are.
I've seen no evidence anyone has even contemplated using it that way. And why would they? It seems completely farfetched.
Jay.