DRV is to determine if we want to undelete it permanently (as far as things
can be permanent in a wiki world). It's impossible to judge if something
should stay deleted without being able to see it.
The history isn't defamatory. Whatever gave you that idea? I want someone to
actually say which source is unreliable. Anyone who knows how the writing
business works knows what she did is a scam and calling it that isn't
defamatory.
Mgm
On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the
point of a deletion review is to decide whether or not the
article should be undeleted. Surely undeleting it in order to decide
to undelete it seems a bit odd...
I'd seen some DRVs where the article history (but not the article, which
stayed locked as that protected stub page) was restored for the duration
of
the DRV so people could judge. is that an
exception then? what makes
something qualify for that?
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or
not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't
want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was
(asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this
is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it.
Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more
people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l