To sum up the current state of the deletion topic.
Several users think it is a good idea that every user
be able to see a deleted page.
The reasons given are 1) transparency (as we claim
Wikipedia respects) and 2) possibility to reuse some
edits in deleted pages.
As already mentionned, it so happens that some banned
users edits are deleted very quickly, without going
through the process of vfd. However, I read several
times (or saw it myself) that parts of the edits of
banned users were good and might be of interest to
keep.
(see for example for Lir
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003689.html)
I suggested that edits of banned users be kept for a
temporary time, either in a boilerplate, or in a
blanked page history...but for the reasons given by
Eloquence and others, I see this proposition is not
good (too much strain on sysop cleaning, not fitting
the requirements of either soft and hard banning). So,
this option can not be kept. And even if the edits
might be good, it is probably better to wait for a
while until picking the stuff up (until the vandal is
gone) and perhaps to put it back under another author
name.
Consequently, because of the good arguments given
against keeping stuff in the article space for longer
than necessary, the only option left, is, to permit
users to see the content of a deleted article.
In short, I think if Wikipedia wants to stay open and
transparent, the deleted stuff should be visible. That
is part of a feedback control which is important in
every system.
-----------
Three persons expressed negativity toward this
proposition.
Jimbo and JeLuf indicated it was not a good idea
because copyrighted material should not be seen from
outsiders. Eloquence indicated it was not good -
probably for this copyright reason, as well as for the
reason it has been already discussed ad nauseum (where
?).
(see
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004028.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004132.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004143.html)
As far as copyrighted material is concerned, I plainly
agree it should not been seen by others than trusted
people (hence, developers and sysops). I agree it
would be potentially very damaging for Wikipedia that
such an information be visible by others, as it could
lead to legal troubles.
Then, I agree it is not a good idea that non-sysop
users see material that has been deleted because of cp
infringements.
However, as Toby mentionned, copyrighted material is
*not* the only material deleted. Far from it. No good
reasons were, till now, given to justify other-than-cp
deleted pages not to be seen by non-sysop users.
Besides, quite a number of people, including Toby,
Martin, Brion, Oliver, and I, think it would be good
that users see deleted pages
(See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003490.html
or
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003755.html
or
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004136.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004154.html
Consequently, I think the solution is that somehow,
deletions for cp issues and for other issues are just
separated in the big black void (sorry, the deletion
area of the db).
This could be made possible if, when deleting the
page, the sysop was somehow proposed to check a little
box (say), which would automatically classify the
deleted page in the cp category.
Then, the deletion log would be grossly separated in
two types, cp stuff and other stuff.
(I also think it would nice to separate per namespaces
: deletion of encyclopedia article, deletion of users
pages, deletion of meta pages).
When accessing the special:page undeleted, all the
stuff with cp material will be invisible (as now) from
non-sysop users, while other stuff (non copyrighted)
is visible.
On top of that, I also think it is quite weird to keep
forever in this deletion db, all this copyrighted
material (or porn pictures perhaps :-)).
Such a separation might give the developer the
possibility to run a deletion query from time to time
(such as "deletion of all copyrighted articles been in
the deletion db for more than 2 months"). Hence,
Wikipedia liability toward cp, would be reduced.
(see also on similar topic
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004121.html
and
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004140.html)
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
> Because it's not in the CVS I can't say if it is a bug, but tring the
> link I seen that it works even without the last bracket ")".
I'm not sure I know what you mean...
On a page "bla (this)", it will show links to "bla (that)", "bla (etc)" and so on, as well as to "bla" itself (usually the main topic or disambiguation page).
I just expanded the function so it won't run on a page like "bla (this", and it won't show links to such pages (closing ")" is required).
Magnus
____________________________________________________________________________
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail anmelden = 1qm Regenwald schuetzen! Helfen
Sie mit! Nutzen Sie den Serien-Testsieger. http://user.web.de/Regenwald
Thank you for those who offered me opinions and insights on this matter.
Ray suggested that it is perfectly legal not to act unless my country
imposes an obligation to act. In my understanding (which I admit is not very
deep nor solid), there is such an obligation. There are some cases
(defamation the most famous, but also others such as harm to a business) in
which admins were found to be liable.
An admin for Japanese wikipedia can be held liable, under japanese legal
system, basically when
1) the content harms japanese (wikipedian, reader, or others such as a
company),
2) I am aware of the content's illegality under japanese law, and
3) I do not delete the content despite that I have the ability (admin
privilage) to do so.
This part is just like in the U.S., I think.
Potential issues here include invasion of privacy, defamation, obscenity,
and copyright violation. But not very sure.
Ray also suggested you can revert the deletion, and therefore there is no
point of deleting or not deleting. But unless you are also an admin in
Japanese wikipedia, I guess you cannot revert it.
Mav suggested that after the act of submission is made, only illegality that
matters is that of U.S./California law. I think otherwise, (i.e. legality of
admins action/inaction also matters) but that aside, if mav is right, then
some questions arises -- do Japanese admins should learn US/California laws
in order to perform their legal obligations and protect themselves?
Another question is if things like social reputation and privacy of a
japanese citizen is protected under any U.S. law. If not, the implications
include that Japanese admins should refuse to remove a content which violate
privacy of a japanese citizen, written in Japanese, even when the victim
asks to do so. As you can imagine, that this is against some peoples'
ethical standards.
regards,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
I have only seen these on en: so far, but other wikis may also have
encountered them -- "/temp" pages which are used to develop a new version
of an article. These are frequently generated in the article namespace,
and often left there to linger forever by those who created them. Often
deletion is problematic because their current status is unclear -- how
much time should someone be given to work on a temp page?
Having these in the article namespace exposes them to standard searches,
uses our article color etc. Subpages are also not supported for the
article namespace, so that backlinks to the main article are not
generated. I see two alternatives:
- Move them to a [[User:foo/bar]] subpage of the user who created them
- Move them to [[Talk:article/temp]] of the article's talk page.
There may be the option of a "Temp:" namespace, but that would probably
fill up with nonsense too quickly.
What do you think? I think I prefer the Talk: option and will probably
start moving this stuff unless there are objections. IMHO keeping them
where they are right now is not an option for a serious encyclopedia.
Regards,
Erik
Bonjour,
I just finish to read [Wikipedia:Image use policy] but I didn't found the
information I searched.
Do we need to write the licence statute on a picture ?
All pictures I released for Wikipedia until now was marked on the
bottom-right by "Under GFDL".
I remeber someone tell me to do more that 1 year latter.
But main part of pictures I see on Wikipedia don't have such mark.
What is the policy about it ?
Regards,
Aoineko
www directs me to 'larousse.wikipedia.org' -- larousse is a great name,
but for an innocent user it looks confusing. Why can't we continue to
use 'www' or 'en' as the host name?
--
| ,__o
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | _-\_<,
ke(a)suse.de (work) / keichwa(a)gmx.net (home) | (*)/'(*)
what's happened to dates on fr: ?
They all look like:
21 mai 2003 ?18:21
On the Mac the "?" is a bullet character.
---------
Bizzare, les dates sur le fr: depuis quelque temps:
21 mai 2003 ?18:21
c'est quoi, ce point d'interrogation?
Hi,
I intend to change the "watch new and modified articles" user preference
to "watch new articles". Most people seem to make too many minor edits to
watch all articles, but in most cases you want to keep an eye on the
articles you start. If there are no objections, I will implement this
change.
(These could also be separate options, but we should try to avoid prefs
clutter.)
Regards,
Erik
http://wikipedia.meetup.com/
I think this is pretty neat, and I'm glad someone did this.
We should promote this from time to time, and see if we can really end
up having some actual meetups.