Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
The problem with this feature was that when the deleted material was libelous, offensive, etc., it would still automatically be copied into the deletion summary, which served to defeat the entire purpose of deleting it.
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Monday, January 17, 2022, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Yes, that's what I imagine.
In the Hebrew Wikipedia, this feature is still active, and someone wondered what is it actually good for. When I delete pages, I definitely erase things that may be in any way problematic. And sometimes I delete them even if they aren't. If this feature didn't exist, it wouldn't bother me. But that's my experience--maybe I'm missing something.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ב׳, 17 בינו׳ 2022 ב-16:35 מאת Newyorkbrad < newyorkbrad@gmail.com>:
The problem with this feature was that when the deleted material was libelous, offensive, etc., it would still automatically be copied into the deletion summary, which served to defeat the entire purpose of deleting it.
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Monday, January 17, 2022, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
This is an interesting point, because many trolls actually WIN when we delete something, because their trolling is there forever. It should be visible for administrators, or if you search for it, but not in the deleted article itself. ________________________________ From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 4:03 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?
Yes, that's what I imagine.
In the Hebrew Wikipedia, this feature is still active, and someone wondered what is it actually good for. When I delete pages, I definitely erase things that may be in any way problematic. And sometimes I delete them even if they aren't. If this feature didn't exist, it wouldn't bother me. But that's my experience--maybe I'm missing something.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ב׳, 17 בינו׳ 2022 ב-16:35 מאת Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.commailto:newyorkbrad@gmail.com>: The problem with this feature was that when the deleted material was libelous, offensive, etc., it would still automatically be copied into the deletion summary, which served to defeat the entire purpose of deleting it.
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On Monday, January 17, 2022, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.ilmailto:amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks for flagging this, Amir. You're right, the reasoning isn't particularly well documented. I've commented on the ticket about the reason English Wikipedia did this, which may be helpful.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 at 09:19, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On ro.wp, we empty the summary when the reason is "Obscene content" and leave it otherwise. For me, it used to be useful as a quick check on admins. However, now that many deletions are made through Twinkle and the Infoboxes are ubiquitous (taking up from the displayed text), this is less useful.
Strainu
În lun., 17 ian. 2022 la 16:19, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il a scris:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On it.wiki we removed both this and "the only editor was..." which proved to be misleading for newcomers, e.g. "I don't think that being the sole editor is a valid reason for this deletion".
Vito
Il giorno lun 17 gen 2022 alle ore 15:19 Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
If the reason for deletion was to suppress undesirable content, why would one want part of it to remain viewable? Cheers, Peter
From: Vi to [mailto:vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com] Sent: 17 January 2022 23:45 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?
On it.wiki we removed both this and "the only editor was..." which proved to be misleading for newcomers, e.g. "I don't think that being the sole editor is a valid reason for this deletion".
Vito
Il giorno lun 17 gen 2022 alle ore 15:19 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il ha scritto:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
The main advantage I can see, is that it requires a conscious decision to not be transparent, rather than a conscious effort to be transparent. There are many cases where deletion is warranted, but the content is not of the type that including a sample would be harmful. So from the point of view of an early community, I can definitely see why this functionality would be desirable.
The question becomes how that balance works out by now: do we need reminders to be transparent to non-admins about our actions? In what percentage of cases do we want to be transparent? And how likely is it that the admin forgets the default, and accidentally publishes the summary, when they wouldn't want to? This trade-off may be different from community to community.
Just a thought, definitely appreciate it when communities think about these settings rather than accepting that it is the way it has always been!
Lodewijk
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:35 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
If the reason for deletion was to suppress undesirable content, why would one want part of it to remain viewable? Cheers, Peter
*From:* Vi to [mailto:vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com] *Sent:* 17 January 2022 23:45 *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?
On it.wiki we removed both this and "the only editor was..." which proved to be misleading for newcomers, e.g. "I don't think that being the sole editor is a valid reason for this deletion".
Vito
Il giorno lun 17 gen 2022 alle ore 15:19 Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Sometimes Information is important. It can make a difference not to contact a sysop in order to know what was it about, speeding up content creation. Personally, I believe that if you don't want to disclose information too much there, a good compromise is to make more users access the deleted versions. Patrollers, but even some type of auto-patrolled users should be able to do that. I mean if there is a decent user who you can trust reading the content and putting a deletion template, than making them read it should not be a problem. Think about copyviol: adapting a deleted text or recovering sources is much faster if you can access it directly. Also, the whole history of a deleted page should be by default visible, not hidden (maybe some specific summary if necessary).
Transparency means that completely hiding is the exception, not the standard, as much as possible. So if it were up to me I would reorganize in a way that local communities can rearrange the users who can access such versions with wider audience, or that a hint of what was there should be generally given if not libelous.
Also, over-hiding deleted information might lead to sloppy quality of deletions. It happened to me at least twice to hear sysop personally complaining that a certain deletion was excessive but the social strong peer-pressure make them uncomfortable to raise the issue. More transparency would clearly reduce these social mechanisms, increasing trust.
It's in any case dysfunctional to treat all deletion cases the same way, that's why local communities should assume a clear public responsibility for adopting the most drastic strategy. It should be a deliberate and widely discussed choice, never a feature kept with no clear responsibility. In one way or in another. A.M.
Il martedì 18 gennaio 2022, 09:23:03 CET, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com ha scritto:
The main advantage I can see, is that it requires a conscious decision to not be transparent, rather than a conscious effort to be transparent. There are many cases where deletion is warranted, but the content is not of the type that including a sample would be harmful. So from the point of view of an early community, I can definitely see why this functionality would be desirable. The question becomes how that balance works out by now: do we need reminders to be transparent to non-admins about our actions? In what percentage of cases do we want to be transparent? And how likely is it that the admin forgets the default, and accidentally publishes the summary, when they wouldn't want to? This trade-off may be different from community to community. Just a thought, definitely appreciate it when communities think about these settings rather than accepting that it is the way it has always been! Lodewijk On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:35 PM Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
If the reason for deletion was to suppress undesirable content, why would one want part of it to remain viewable? Cheers, Peter
From: Vi to [mailto:vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com] Sent: 17 January 2022 23:45 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?
On it.wiki we removed both this and "the only editor was..." which proved to be misleading for newcomers, e.g. "I don't think that being the sole editor is a valid reason for this deletion".
Vito
Il giorno lun 17 gen 2022 alle ore 15:19 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il ha scritto:
Hallo!
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
|
| Virus-free. www.avg.com |
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org