I doubt that deleted stuff is libelous. Libelous material is oversighted, not AfD'd which is what the mentioned site is archiving. The mentioned site is not archiving oversighted material.
In a message dated 9/5/2008 3:23:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nawrich@gmail.com writes:
Your suggestion might make sense if there were some greater value to having broad access to deleted content from Wikipedia. Other sites might find something worth seeing among the morass of deleted articles, but a lot of that "content" is poisonous, libelous, or simply and sometimes harmfully wrong. Why would we need to make it easier for people to see that stuff? For the instances where content of relative value is deleted? Those pages would be sort of a needle in a gigantic pile of manure, wouldn't they, and so wouldn't the negatives clearly outweigh the positives on this one?
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:30 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I doubt that deleted stuff is libelous. Libelous material is oversighted, not AfD'd which is what the mentioned site is archiving. The mentioned site is not archiving oversighted material.
This is your oft-repeated version of how things *should be done* - not how they are always done.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:30 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I doubt that deleted stuff is libelous. Libelous material is oversighted, not AfD'd which is what the mentioned site is archiving. The mentioned site is not archiving oversighted material.
This is your oft-repeated version of how things *should be done* - not how they are always done.
Even if it weren't I don't see how it's Wikimedia's problem. Wikimedia isn't hosting the material and it isn't responsible for creating it so if there's libel it's on the heads of the original author and perhaps on Wikiunderground.
They can always use the same method Wikipedia does to deal with libel - have policies against it and remove it whenever it's found.
2008/9/6 WJhonson@aol.com:
I doubt that deleted stuff is libelous. Libelous material is oversighted, not AfD'd which is what the mentioned site is archiving.
Oh, goodness, no.
Oversighted material is quite bad; not all quite bad material is oversighted. A fair proportion of CSD is gutter abuse of the "might be libellous if it wasn't so stupid" form (kids explaining how their favourite teacher has a great liking for his pet dog, etc) and no-one bothers oversighting that; just delete and it's gone.
AFDs, likewise; if there's sensitive personal information, that might get oversighted; if it's a libellous hatchet job that's going to get deleted anyway, well, it'll just get deleted.
It would solve this disccusion rather neatly if all "bad deletions" were oversighted - indeed, the proposal here is basically for something conceptually like that to happen, with some way of differentially deleting "good but not for here" and "actively bad" - but it's certainly not the way it currently happens.