TK: "Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can."
What people seem to disagree with is with the notion that the log "has to be kept private" due to someone's claim of 'legally problematic revisions.' Is Google facilitating the "damage of Starbucks' reputation" by not removing "consumer whore" from its Image searches?
Understanding that legal systems are not always reasonable, WM cant reasonably be responsible for everything in the history of its articles. And to say the risk is great is simply to court the clique of privelege who think they can simply make a phone call and get things deleted through a privileged legalistic and back-door process -- for what everyone else does with the edit button.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com