On 6/21/06, Dan Cannon unlogischerdenker@hotmail.com wrote:
The reason given by Brion VIBBER in the commit log was "Consensus seems to be to drop the public log, now that we have a private log." I've posted a message on his talk page to express that some of us do indeed not entirely agree with this move (myself included). Awaiting his response.
It's a tricky problem. If you publish the full log, anyone with a database dump can retrieve the deleted revisions and publish them (Wikitruth etc.). The point is to remove personal information and legally problematic revisions without them re-appearing the next day on some other website.
I understand that oversight people now have the ability to view the deleted revisions, so there should at least be some mutual control. Perhaps a version of the log oculd be made visible where the actual page titles are not shown, but only the basic activity (e.g. "User X removed a revision because of personal information").
As the oversight group is fairly small, the process for appointing new members needs not be too bureaucratic. However, if the group grows, I think it would be good if people appointed by the ArbCom (as Essjay in the current group was) would have to be confirmed by the community, to demonstrate that the community is involved, and to alleviate concerns about "cabalism".
Erik