Actually, now that I look (I admit, I have a tendency to speak before I read), that's almost exactly what we have now, sans the description of how it got that way.
FF
On 12/5/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On point #2: Wouldn't the easiest way to kill two birds with one stone be to write up a little bit about his accusations against Wikipedia, the explanation of how they got there that Jimbo gave earlier (created by anon, checked but not "checked", not super important, etc.), quote the "libelous" material, then delete the original material from the edit history?
The end result would be that the history of the material would be there ("Siegenthaler's page said 'XYZ'."), but the unattributed, this-is-a-fact version would not be.
Plus, it would be a very, very clever form of reflexivity, and demonstrate our undiminishing openness, even on topics which make us look bad.
FF
On 12/5/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com 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?
-Phil Sandifer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l