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