[WikiEN-l] Bauer DRV question - history (was Wikimedia Foundation sued)

[George Herbert]

On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/03/07, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion.
> > And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
>
> Er. It's not "prejudiced towards deletion", it's prejudiced against
> *not continuing to publish defamatory material unless we have to*. And
> I note I said "the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history
> was actually defamatory"; I'm not sure how this is "hiding my
> prejudice".
>
> > > I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as
> > > defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly
> > > imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
> >
> > In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be
> > an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions
> > are a legitimate
> > way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy
> > attitude, but the point is
> > is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a
> > prejudicial way is unwiki
> > and against the community spirit.
>
> I have honestly no idea what that alphabet soup of things meant; as
> far as I know the Office has no opinion on this and is firmly staying
> that way, at least until actual papers turn up.
>
> Perhaps I should be crystal clear here. My opinion is that this is a
> non-objectionable article, on someone who is a) non-notable and b) a
> scammer pretty much as described in loving detail by TNH et. al. I
> don't feel we are at any legal risk should we continue to publish it,
> but I am ambivalent as to whether or not our notability policies say
> we should keep it. (In short: I don't give a damn. Please note my not
> participating in the deletion debate)
>
> However, some people are. There have been issues raised with the
> article; people are arguing in good faith that it was an attack page,
> potentially libellous, what have you. This is why we don't undelete;
> because if those people are right, undeleting it would be wilfuly
> stupid, deliberately continuing publication after initial decision to
> remove. You can go look at the google cache if you want to see what it
> looked like - it's still there, IIRC...

There is a good-faith concern here - non-admins can get pretty
frustrated if the Google cache and so forth aren't good coverage for a
now-deleted, but up for review, article.

It's the one thing which has suprised me about how much happier I am
now that I am an admin.  The rest of it was work effort reductions I
was expecting, for the most part; actually being able to look at
normal deleted content as part of the review process made me
unexpectedly much happier.

Makes me want to code up a new user permission bit to let people look
at deleted edits without having to get full admin rights, in my
nonexistent spare time...


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com