It seems to me that we need both -- a destructive delete when something just
has to go, and a nondestructive delete, the primary purpose of which is to turn
article links back into '?' links (i.e. edit links rather than read links),
without
a lot of fuss and muss.
And yes, destructive delete should be locked down.
And yes, we need methods of self defense. The challenge is to have
just enough self-defense without providing ourselves with temptations
to cliquism and power games.
lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
Under phase
II, deleted articles were retained in the table of old
versions, and if necessary could have been restored by a sysop
querying the database. (There never was a pretty interface set up
for this.)
I didn't realize that. I could make delete less destructive, say, by
moving everything to an "archives" table that gets taped off every
now and then.
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l