[WikiEN-l] DRV and WT:BLP

[Nathan Awrich]

Oh boy, black lines over redacted text... The critics would absolutely
love the opportunity for comparison that would present.

On Dec 17, 2007 10:08 AM, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > If oversight just deleted the text and the summary, and left
> > the rest of the information, that'd also accomplish this.
>
> Alternatively we could give the "oversighters" the ability to
> retroactively edit the old revisions (and the corresponding edit
> summaries) replacing strings of offensive text with "[redacted]", or
> "[redacted by [USER]], or a long black streak, or whatever.[2]
>
> This would leave the remainder of the edit history intact, ensuring
> that nobody loses attribution[3] for their edits by failing to notice
> that section 8 contained Paris Hilton's cell phone number at the time
> of their (innocent) edits to section 3.
>
> [1] FSVO "offensive", http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hiding_revisions#Use
> [2] With a little extra thought, the devs could create a non-spoofable
> placeholder syntax for any redacted text.
> [3] I would prefer a definition of "attribution" which exceeds the
> GFDL requirements, namely the ability (from here to eternity) to look
> at every diff of every article and be able to see which text was
> added, modified, or removed by which user, except in situations where
> *that particular* text has been "hidden".
>
> -C.W.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>