Once again you're misrepresenting my point - 1. I am not suggesting we remove the ability to delete material that causes us legal issues. 2. I am not suggesting that we do not blank material that should not be in the encyclopedia (although I find the idea that we should only have what Britanica has disturbing). 3. One man's detail is another's trivia. Should I delete all the 'trivia' we have on science or maths topics?
My question is: Information that is blanked is still not visible to the reader unless they choose to see the history page. What is the advantage in not making the history page of deleted articles available to anyone who wants to see it, so long as there is no legal reason why we cannot display it?
Mark
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Monday 25 October 2004 23:17, Mark Richards wrote:
material that we were not legally required to
remove.
I am sorry I sometimes write my responses so quickly that I don't answer completely.
If you want to maintain the serious aura of an encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia Britannica you might want to delete articles you consider non-encyclopedic. However, I would not expect to find [[Slashdot trolling phenomena]] in Britannica, but this is exactly the reason why I do not read Britannica: It's too serious and full of general info without much trivia.
If you want to be a knowledge base then you should keep all legal information that is submitted to you. This is what I do at http://jnana.wikinerds.org
The point is, not all information is legal, so you need to have the ability to completely delete some articles.
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail