Many thanks for that reply - very useful to have the facts out in the open and I hope it
helps to build trust.
> When oversight or suppression are used, it's
book policy that oversighters
> almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly in
> the public logs.
In many cases, that makes sense. However, in this case, the sensitive material was only
sensitive at the time - once the subject was released there was no continuing risk.
As you mentioned, oversight wasn't necessary in this case. However, it's not
inconceivable that another case where oversight is used might also be "temporarily
sensitive". Perhaps, for instance, if it has been used in a suspected harassment that
turns out to be something else.
In that case, it might make sense for the "book policy" to allow disclosure (or
even reversal) of the oversight in these cases.
----- "FT2" <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: "FT2" <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, 16 July, 2009 21:20:04 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] News suppression: Did it use Oversight or RevisionDelete?
Update: I've now checked the case, and yes I had heard of this matter. But
being on a break for the last few weeks to deal with real-world matters, I
hadn't made the connection just from the words "Rohde/NYT". I checked which
article with Rohde in the title, also covered the NYT as well. Luckily there
was only one.
Quick explanation :)
FT2
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:06 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A quick answer.
I have no idea which dispute or real-world issue this was about, nor when.
I'm assuming following a quick search the page concerned is "David S.
Rohde".
When oversight or revision delete are used, it's almost without exception
for serious reasons, for example where there is a concern over potential
defamation or breach of privacy policy in the post. Not mere offensive
comments, and not mere undesirability. A significant number of users
cross-check each other on it, and there is an audit committee on english
wikipedia to investigate any concerns as well. Privacy issues are taken
extremely seriously.
When oversight or suppression are used, it's book policy that oversighters
almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly in
the public logs. The trust required is why oversighter selection is a big
deal. The underlying reason for the policy is that sometimes just having
confirmation that a person or topic was targeted can be enough to do serious
harm, when genuine cases such as stalking and serious harassment etc are
intended by someone, if you think about it. (And if some were answered and
others weren't then things might be read into a non-answer.)
So the standard answer to all inquiries of this kind by any oversighter is
"we don't discuss such matters, but we will look and check nothing untoward
has happened, if you would like"
However in this case I have discussed the inquiry and can confirm, that no
material was or has ever been oversighted or suppressed (using
revisiondelete) from the article I think you're referring to, "[[David S.
Rohde]]".
Hopefully that's enough to put your mind at rest. Don't count on such
confirmation another time -- it's exceedingly rare to get it :)
FT2
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Joseph Reagle <reagle(a)mit.edu> wrote:
Does anyone know if during the NYT/Rohde case the Oversight function was
used to hide edits? When the story broke, I could see all the edit history,
but I presume the function can be deployed against select revisions and then
removed? Or maybe it was the new RevisionDelete?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l