DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as things can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something should stay deleted without being able to see it.
The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want someone to actually say which source is unreliable. Anyone who knows how the writing business works knows what she did is a scam and calling it that isn't defamatory.
Mgm
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide to undelete it seems a bit odd...
I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration
of
the DRV so people could judge. is that an exception then? what makes something qualify for that?
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.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l