On 4/19/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@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