Andrew Gray wrote:
And the risk *is* great - I've dealt with a suprising number of emails to the info-en address which complain about their article and say *someone else told them*. What if that someone else is the employer, the client... the schools inspector?
We cannot be held legally liable for everything that's there. We may not even be legally liable for leaving it up once they've told us it's there (though I'm sure that question will be tested by someone somewhere someday). But we are *morally* liable if we don't at least try to do something about helping a person who, through no fault of their own, is suffering from the misuse of our resources. It's simple humanity.
And on the first part... if we're deleting these things, expunging them totally, is there any *reason* for the log to be public? Any at all? Oversight, perhaps. But... what effect does this oversight have? Are we really, honestly, concerned about the dozen people with this capacity using it in some nefarious way to win arguments or to rewrite history? I sound like I'm attacking a strawman here, but I honestly don't think I've seen a good reason why people think this tool is dangerous. Please, someone, give me a scenario where this could be used badly, where the ability to expunge deleted revisions is somehow harmful in a way that a public log would prevent...
I agree totally with much of what you say here. The only thing I'll disagree with is that I would say there /is/ a risk of harm from misuse. One problem is that using this facility can distort the history. Anything added in a deleted edit, and not reverted in later edits, will be attributed to the wrong editor when the deletion is done. This can happen with normal deletions, but at least there it's easy for a lot of people to see the real story.
The other risk is it being used to remove information that it's important for the community to know. Removing problem edits to hide them from arbitrators for example.
The first is a necessary evil, but a reason for care and a record of deletions viewable by some. The second is less likely, and not a problem when those with oversight can see what each other are doing and what has been deleted.
I think the current system is the best balance. Those with oversight are responsible for ensuring that none of the group misuse or overuse this ability, but the information is cleanly removed from view.
-- sannse