[WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk at gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 06:51 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?
>
>On 7/30/07, sean at epoptic.com <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 06:20:58PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
>> > I can't begin to untangle all the rhetorical questions, strawmen,
>> > and sarcastic remarks here, but: the point is that, for the
>> > current issue at least, there *is* a de facto ban on links to
>> > slashdot. All sorts of random editors, at least some of them
>> > presumably innocent and well-meaning, are asking questions about
>> > the Slashdot story, and those questions are being methodically
>> > removed without a trace.
>>
>> "those questions are being methodically removed without a trace" --
>> oh, really? How is that "without a trace" being implemented? Oversight?
>>
>> Or is your statement just another part of "all the rhetorical
>> questions, strawmen, and sarcastic remarks here"?
>
>
>Well, I think a recent post to the list suggested that the old-fashioned
>"delete and restore" route we used to take prior to oversight's invention
>has been followed - it's not "without a trace", but it's enough to make it
>hard to see what was there unless you're an admin. And according to David
>Gerard (I think), there have been rejected requests to use oversight in this
>case. Steve may be exaggerating, but not by much.
>
>Johnleemk

I went and looked at the Slashdot discussion. It's not about the kooky accusations, but about significant issues. Our users would find the discussion interesting and it would help if they weighed in. I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot removing links to the Slashdot page. It's certainly an initiation into the kind of nonsense we've been dealing with privately for the last two years. Time everybody got baptized.

Fred