I too think that that policy is too narrow. It lacks one essential point: "use common sense". That ought to do the trick.
2008/6/11, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
ndation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsu>>>> There is one issue from the GRU policy proposal I have ported from
Wikipedia. It specifies that those with the right to view deleted contributions should not do so in order to disseminate the content of the deleted contributions to third parties.
How do we know? There is no log of who views deleted pages except for whatever Brion and the other devs can access. Do we need such a log?
This is an interesting issue for Wikinews as two controversial deleted articles were passed to Wikileaks. I doubt knowing who accessed the deleted content would get us any closer to knowing who was responsible for the leak, but it would narrow the field.
There are no logs (maybe in the future?). You should ask people from en.wp how do they deal with their own admins. It is about social engineering, not about a technical one.
If the logs show that several people have accessed th page how can you know which one was responsible for the leak?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Stuff that is worth leaking should probably be oversighted since that is what the tool was made for.
Bryan
Oversighting is covered by a specific policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight and (at least on English Wikipedia) Oversighters won't go outside of it (at least, anymore). You would be agast to know what they'll decline to oversight.
WilyD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l