On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the
history is visible or
not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
(asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion.
And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was
asserted to as
defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be
an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions
are a legitimate
way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy
attitude, but the point is
is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a
prejudicial way is unwiki
and against the community spirit.
-Stevertigo