We can't do that really. Just drop the person a polite note explaining that while we respect his right to privacy, we are an encyclopedia and it's our job to provide information. It is unfortunately not possible for us to remove verifiable information based on such considerations. This is a sensitive issue and care needs to be taken. But ultimately, we really can't put the interests of the subject over those of the encyclopedia.
Molu
On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Joseph Hiegel wrote:
Yesterday a user posted to ANI requesting that excisions be made from the >edit history of a biographical article in order that information troubling to the >subject should be removed.
<snip>
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
G'day Molu,
[top-posting fixed. Again.]
On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Joseph Hiegel wrote:
Yesterday a user posted to ANI requesting that excisions be made from the >edit history of a biographical article in order that information troubling to the >subject should be removed.
We can't do that really. Just drop the person a polite note explaining that while we respect his right to privacy, we are an encyclopedia and it's our job to provide information. It is unfortunately not possible for us to remove verifiable information based on such considerations. This is a sensitive issue and care needs to be taken. But ultimately, we really can't put the interests of the subject over those of the encyclopedia.
Nonsense. If there is an edit, which is soundly rejected, and which contains objectionable material, there's nothing wrong with deleting that edit from the history.
We should not be removing things from the article merely because the subject doesn't want them said. However, if we agree that something should not be said, and the subject wants it removed from the history ... so be it. Imagine if we had caught the Siegenthaler (have I spelled it right yet?) vandalism quickly, and reverted it ... then Mr Siegenthaler came across the article later and read through the history, and asked that we delete particularly disturbing cases of vandalism. There is nothing wrong with that.
If this is not such a case, weeeell, we can't help him. But "we don't do that sort of thing" is wrong, both in theory and practice.