[Foundation-l] Policy proposal: Anti-vandal fighter role

[Brian McNeil]

There is a world of difference between telling another contributor the
content of a deleted page and, say, passing it to ValleyWag or Wikileaks. In
the cases I have in mind, the "breach" was passing the information to a
third party which would publicly promote it.

There is the possibility someone could have saved the content prior to its
deletion, or retrieved a version from their browser cache. However, it seems
more likely that someone used administrative privileges to retrieve the
content to pass on to Wikileaks.

Of the two articles on Wikinews that I am referring to, one was likely libel
and could perhaps have been oversighted. The other should be restored in the
course of time and brought up to date. The restoration is dependent on the
conclusion of a court case, and as was stressed to me, the publication on
Wikinews potentially put WMF staff in the position of having given
misleading information to the court.


Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels
Sent: 12 June 2008 02:17
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Policy proposal: Anti-vandal fighter role

2008/6/11 Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org>:
> 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.

What are 'third parties' here? Surely if you cannot tell anyone what
content a deleted page has, there is little point in looking.


-- 
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l