On 8/20/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
I'd phrase
it as "I removed a possibly defamatory claim because it was
unsourced [link to diff]". What's materially changed is that the
claim is a bit more hidden, and probably more importantly, that the
claim won't show up in a google search (as diff pages are under the
robots exclusion).
It's also just cleaner and easier (IMO). Why copy/paste the claim
when you can just link to it?
I don't say this to you often, Anthony, but: good show. I think you've
hit the nail firmly on the head there.
Why *not* just explain what you've done and link to a diff? Easier for
you, safer for us, for considerate for them.
*Because* it's "a bit more hidden". At the end of the day, our talk
pages are there to assist *us* in having a good discussion, to achieve
our goals of neutrality, informativeness etc. A diff instead of the
text hinders that. What if I removed 30 claims in one edit? How would
I make it clear which one was the problem? I really do strongly
believe that we should be looking at ways to make talk pages a more
powerful tool where free, open discussion can take place, not looking
at ways to censor them from search engines.
To ask again: Any reason talk pages should be searchable?
Steve