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