"allow non-sysops to view deleted pages".
You need to thin[k] about legal consequences if you allow everyone to
access
"deleted" copyright violations or illegal information.
I presume only logged in users would be allowed to view these articles, not everyone. I don't see how the legal consequences of this are any different from the legal consequences of allowing admins to access the articles, or allowing everyone to access the copyright violations in the history.
Yes, there should be some type of real deletion, for articles or history entries which are illegal for us to distribute, but this is a separate issue. It should be done regardless of whether access to deleted articles is limited to admins, to all logged in users, or to admins and me.
allow certain IP addresses to access deleted articles.
That's unfair to IP switchers, including but not limited to people who
access
WP from many computer networks (home/work/etc), people who change ISP and dynamic connections.
It's already "unfair" for these IP switchers, though. At least allowing some people to access these article would make it less unfair. I suppose this could be implemented with a username and password in addition, but I'd prefer to not have to log in, as this is just more overhead for my scripts.
[if] there's an objection to me personally having access to deleted
articles.
Not allowing access to information to a specific person just because that person's presence is perhaps undesired is undemocratic.
If I were singled out, perhaps, but I was using myself as an example. If Wikipedia allowed me, personally, to access deleted articles (in addition to admins), they certainly wouldn't be in any more legal trouble than if they only allowed admins.
I thought there was some due process that disallowed sysops from deleting legitimate content via "speedy deletions".
There is considerable disagreement over whether or not small stubs may be speedily deleted under this process. This is in addition to the fact that there are a number of admins who regularly break the speedy deletion policy.
I would say that downloading the dumps just to get some vfd articles
consumes
too much bandwidth that other people would use for reading and learning.
Well that's not the only reason I get the dumps, but yes, it's not the most efficient method.
I think MediaWiki keeps all deleted articles in the archive database table
but
it is readable only by sysops. Perhaps you could ask for sysop privileges
and
use them only for reading the deleted articles
I've actually already tried this. My request was overwhelmingly disapproved.
Can someone explain why giving access to deleted article content that is not actually illegal for us to distribute would be a bad thing? Mark
--- Anthony DiPierro anthonydipierro@hotmail.com wrote:
"allow non-sysops to view deleted pages".
You need to thin[k] about legal consequences if
you allow everyone to access
"deleted" copyright violations or illegal
information.
I presume only logged in users would be allowed to view these articles, not everyone. I don't see how the legal consequences of this are any different from the legal consequences of allowing admins to access the articles, or allowing everyone to access the copyright violations in the history.
Yes, there should be some type of real deletion, for articles or history entries which are illegal for us to distribute, but this is a separate issue. It should be done regardless of whether access to deleted articles is limited to admins, to all logged in users, or to admins and me.
allow certain IP addresses to access deleted
articles.
That's unfair to IP switchers, including but not
limited to people who access
WP from many computer networks (home/work/etc),
people who change ISP and
dynamic connections.
It's already "unfair" for these IP switchers, though. At least allowing some people to access these article would make it less unfair. I suppose this could be implemented with a username and password in addition, but I'd prefer to not have to log in, as this is just more overhead for my scripts.
[if] there's an objection to me personally
having access to deleted articles.
Not allowing access to information to a specific
person just because that
person's presence is perhaps undesired is
undemocratic.
If I were singled out, perhaps, but I was using myself as an example. If Wikipedia allowed me, personally, to access deleted articles (in addition to admins), they certainly wouldn't be in any more legal trouble than if they only allowed admins.
I thought there was some due process that
disallowed sysops from deleting
legitimate content via "speedy deletions".
There is considerable disagreement over whether or not small stubs may be speedily deleted under this process. This is in addition to the fact that there are a number of admins who regularly break the speedy deletion policy.
I would say that downloading the dumps just to
get some vfd articles consumes
too much bandwidth that other people would use for
reading and learning.
Well that's not the only reason I get the dumps, but yes, it's not the most efficient method.
I think MediaWiki keeps all deleted articles in
the archive database table but
it is readable only by sysops. Perhaps you could
ask for sysop privileges and
use them only for reading the deleted articles
I've actually already tried this. My request was overwhelmingly disapproved. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
On Monday 25 October 2004 22:46, Mark Richards wrote:
Can someone explain why giving access to deleted
In my understanding if you receive a DMCA takedown notice you need to disable access to the infringing material. If you "delete" the page but users can still see it, then you haven't properly disabled access. So, even if you implement this feature, you need to be able to "flag" some pages for complete/proper deletion. Of course you can always manually manipulate the database.
Please, read what I wrote - I was talking about material that we were not legally required to remove. Is there any reason not to give access to that? Mark
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Monday 25 October 2004 22:46, Mark Richards wrote:
Can someone explain why giving access to deleted
In my understanding if you receive a DMCA takedown notice you need to disable access to the infringing material. If you "delete" the page but users can still see it, then you haven't properly disabled access. So, even if you implement this feature, you need to be able to "flag" some pages for complete/proper deletion. Of course you can always manually manipulate the database.
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Monday 25 October 2004 23:17, Mark Richards wrote:
material that we were not legally required to remove.
I am sorry I sometimes write my responses so quickly that I don't answer completely.
If you want to maintain the serious aura of an encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia Britannica you might want to delete articles you consider non-encyclopedic. However, I would not expect to find [[Slashdot trolling phenomena]] in Britannica, but this is exactly the reason why I do not read Britannica: It's too serious and full of general info without much trivia.
If you want to be a knowledge base then you should keep all legal information that is submitted to you. This is what I do at http://jnana.wikinerds.org
The point is, not all information is legal, so you need to have the ability to completely delete some articles.
Once again you're misrepresenting my point - 1. I am not suggesting we remove the ability to delete material that causes us legal issues. 2. I am not suggesting that we do not blank material that should not be in the encyclopedia (although I find the idea that we should only have what Britanica has disturbing). 3. One man's detail is another's trivia. Should I delete all the 'trivia' we have on science or maths topics?
My question is: Information that is blanked is still not visible to the reader unless they choose to see the history page. What is the advantage in not making the history page of deleted articles available to anyone who wants to see it, so long as there is no legal reason why we cannot display it?
Mark
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Monday 25 October 2004 23:17, Mark Richards wrote:
material that we were not legally required to
remove.
I am sorry I sometimes write my responses so quickly that I don't answer completely.
If you want to maintain the serious aura of an encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia Britannica you might want to delete articles you consider non-encyclopedic. However, I would not expect to find [[Slashdot trolling phenomena]] in Britannica, but this is exactly the reason why I do not read Britannica: It's too serious and full of general info without much trivia.
If you want to be a knowledge base then you should keep all legal information that is submitted to you. This is what I do at http://jnana.wikinerds.org
The point is, not all information is legal, so you need to have the ability to completely delete some articles.
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 00:42, Mark Richards wrote:
My question is: Information that is blanked is still not visible to the reader unless they choose to see the history page. What is the advantage in not making the history page of deleted articles available to anyone who wants to see it, so long as there is no legal reason why we cannot display it?
Ok now I see your point:) I think that your idea of blanking instead of deleting is very good and should be implemented. Great suggestion.
Will it be visible to search engines?
Not if the search engines search the 'live' versions only and not the whole history. It is my understanding that 'history' versions are not trawled by search engines - is that right? Mark
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 00:42, Mark Richards wrote:
My question is: Information that is blanked is
still
not visible to the reader unless they choose to
see
the history page. What is the advantage in not
making
the history page of deleted articles available to anyone who wants to see it, so long as there is no legal reason why we cannot display it?
Ok now I see your point:) I think that your idea of blanking instead of deleting is very good and should be implemented. Great suggestion.
Will it be visible to search engines?
-- NSK Admin of http://portal.wikinerds.org Project Manager of http://www.nerdypc.org Project Manager of http://www.adapedia.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 01:08, Mark Richards wrote:
'history' versions are not trawled by search
This depends on the Apache web server configuration via the robots.txt file.
I am not sure what rules Wikipedia defines in robots.txt but I think it doesn't allow search indexing of history pages. However, according to your proposal, if useful/interesting content is available via history pages then it will not get indexed if your robots.txt disallows that, so users will be unable to search for it. I wonder whether there is any way to disallow indexing only for certain history pages...
In my wikis ( http://jnana.wikinerds.org , http://maatworks.wikinerds.org , http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org , http://adapedia.wikinerds.org ) I have noticed that some search engines crawl my edit and history pages but I should change my robots.txt to disallow that.
When there is no page, I want to see red links, not blue ones, because some nonsense that was there was deleted.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:23:13 +0200, Pawe³ 'Ausir' Dembowski fallout@lexx.eu.org wrote:
When there is no page, I want to see red links, not blue ones, because some nonsense that was there was deleted.
Yes. Hence the need for a software feature that allows for "soft deletion", where any user can see the history of the deleted article; I don't think anyone is advocating just inserting a blank article in such cases. As I understand it, admins can already request the history for a non-existent page, and thus see those revisions that have been deleted; I'm not entirely sure how that interface works, and how it interacts with any non-deleted history, but if it works in a fairly sane way then it could presumably be extended to all logged in users.
On a quick side-note to which, there's probably going to be a more flexible permissions system in the software soon, so it ought to be possible to assign this ability to a subset of users distinct from the subset assigned general "admin" privileges.
Yes, this is more or less what I meant, although, to be honest, I see no reason for deletion except for page moves from inapropriate names, legal issues and abuse / offensive page names. Mark
--- Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:23:13 +0200, Pawe� 'Ausir' Dembowski fallout@lexx.eu.org wrote:
When there is no page, I want to see red links,
not blue ones, because
some nonsense that was there was deleted.
Yes. Hence the need for a software feature that allows for "soft deletion", where any user can see the history of the deleted article; I don't think anyone is advocating just inserting a blank article in such cases. As I understand it, admins can already request the history for a non-existent page, and thus see those revisions that have been deleted; I'm not entirely sure how that interface works, and how it interacts with any non-deleted history, but if it works in a fairly sane way then it could presumably be extended to all logged in users.
On a quick side-note to which, there's probably going to be a more flexible permissions system in the software soon, so it ought to be possible to assign this ability to a subset of users distinct from the subset assigned general "admin" privileges.
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
NSK wrote:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 01:08, Mark Richards wrote:
'history' versions are not trawled by search
This depends on the Apache web server configuration via the robots.txt file.
I am not sure what rules Wikipedia defines in robots.txt but I think it doesn't allow search indexing of history pages. However, according to your proposal, if useful/interesting content is available via history pages then it will not get indexed if your robots.txt disallows that, so users will be unable to search for it. I wonder whether there is any way to disallow indexing only for certain history pages...
In my wikis ( http://jnana.wikinerds.org , http://maatworks.wikinerds.org , http://nerdypc.wikinerds.org , http://adapedia.wikinerds.org ) I have noticed that some search engines crawl my edit and history pages but I should change my robots.txt to disallow that.
No, MediaWiki disallows indexing using meta tags. Both history pages and old revisions have the following tag:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />
All search engines that I'm aware of respect these tags. Our robots.txt just sets some directories to be off limits, and asks certain user agents to stay away.
-- Tim Starling