On 4/19/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/19/06, maru dubshinki
<marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. Vandalism is direct actual damage to
our content and our
reputation, as opposed to possible theoretical damages caused by those
iages. The abuse of trust is sad, and possibly a moral lapse (do we
expect admins to never take screenshots of deleted pages, and to hold
close to their chest any information declared verboten?), but the
legal argument I'm not sure I buy- the guilty one is the one
retrieving it and publishing it. We removed it, in good faith. While I
am not a lawyer, our responsibility seems minimal.
Vandalism is also much easier to fix, of course.
But the question is not one of admins innocently taking screenshots of
deleted pages. It's one thing to fail to properly safeguard
information that shouldn't be getting distributed; it's quite another
to use admin abilities within Wikipedia in order to pass sensitive
information to an openly anti-Wikipedia site.
Kirill Lokshin
Don't get fixated on the admin power abuse thing. It is merely a
convenient method and sign of who they have on their side. They could
do it just as easily through database dumps, or spidering CFD/AFD, or
scaping mirrors, or... You see what I'm getting at? Frankly, the CC
GFDL issue aside, I find it kinda amusing we're all so horrified at
seeing some of our content (for better or worse) on other websites.
They're the one hosting it; no moral blame descends on us for at one
time making a mistake, rectifying it, and then keeping records in case
our rectification was a mistake. But I think I've posted enough in
this thread, so good night.
~maru