Steve Block wrote:
Snowspinner wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because of news coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
I would disagree. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to libel suits.
I don't believe that's true. When newspapers have been sued for libel, typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement, i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the offending article from their archives, which for historical archival purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
-Mark