From: John Lee [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 06:51 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?
On 7/30/07, sean(a)epoptic.com <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 06:20:58PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
I can't begin to untangle all the rhetorical
and sarcastic remarks here, but: the point is that, for the
current issue at least, there *is* a de facto ban on links to
slashdot. All sorts of random editors, at least some of them
presumably innocent and well-meaning, are asking questions about
the Slashdot story, and those questions are being methodically
removed without a trace.
"those questions are being methodically removed without a trace" --
oh, really? How is that "without a trace" being implemented? Oversight?
Or is your statement just another part of "all the rhetorical
questions, strawmen, and sarcastic remarks here"?
Well, I think a recent post to the list suggested that the old-fashioned
"delete and restore" route we used to take prior to oversight's invention
has been followed - it's not "without a trace", but it's enough to make
hard to see what was there unless you're an admin. And according to David
Gerard (I think), there have been rejected requests to use oversight in this
case. Steve may be exaggerating, but not by much.
I went and looked at the Slashdot discussion. It's not about the kooky accusations,
but about significant issues. Our users would find the discussion interesting and it would
help if they weighed in. I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot removing links to
the Slashdot page. It's certainly an initiation into the kind of nonsense we've
been dealing with privately for the last two years. Time everybody got baptized.