Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the [[Essjay controversy]] article should be deleted. I suspect that ten years from now it will be seen as a minor blip in Wikipedia's history, and by then the argument for deleting it will be stronger than it is now.
At present, however, I think there are practical reasons *not* to delete the article. The Essjay controversy is still only a few months old and fresh enough in memory that deleting it carries an aroma of Wikipedia trying to whitewash itself.
I'd second that.
For a host of reasons, I think we should not just be scrupulous, but bend over backwards to make our scrupulousness clear. During the Essjay dustup, I was disappointed at the speed at which a lot of material both by and about Essjay disappeared from public view. I'm sure it was well meant, but someone legitimately skeptical of Wikipedia could easily interpret those deletions and removals as self-protective.
I think this is especially important if we want to preserve anonymous and pseudonymous contributions. Falling back on "trust us" can only work to the extend that people feel they can identify the "us". I'd rather we maximized transparency, so that instead of telling skeptics, "Trust us to manage the world's most popular source of facts!" we can say, "There's no need to trust us; investigate anything you like."
William