[WikiEN-l] DRV and WT:BLP

[Anthony]

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]
>
Well, if all you let the oversighters do is replace text (including
summaries) with "[redacted]", they wouldn't be able to make the kinds
of oversights they have made in the past.  I'm not sure how much
detail I'm allowed to get into when explaining what I mean by that,
but for instance you can't hide the fact that User X made an edit to
Article A at Time T by simply deleting or redacting text or summaries.

Hmm, let me bring up a hypothetical.  Say I edit the article for my
old high school and insert that the bathrooms often overflowed.  Then
a bunch more edits get made, keeping my text in there.  Then I decide
that my old high school is private information and that by inserting
that the bathrooms often overflowed I've revealed that I went to that
high school.  Should the oversighters be allowed to remove this edit
of mine?  And if so, how would they manage to do that by inserting
[redacted]s?

Now, if you let the oversighters actually edit the old revisions
freely, they could do what they've done in the past even more
effectively.  They could change my edit into a spelling fix, my
summary into "fix spelling", and then change the following person's
edit into a reversion of the spelling fix and the insertion of the
bathroom overflowing statement.  But that'd be way way too much power
and ability for abuse.  Not to mention unfair to the poor person
making the subsequent edit.