We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.
After all, you
could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
saying about this list? Are they right?
,Wil
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair
<wllm(a)wllm.com> wrote:
> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
>
> "
> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
>
> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
> "
>
> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
> discussion that includes the comment above:
>
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p…
,Wil
Hi Wil,
This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus
on
learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and
movements before
jumping
into the hottest, most controversial issues. It
takes time to develop the
understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
channels.
Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly
logged. Other channels
prohibit people from publishing logs.
It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
suppressed
altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I
think if you considered it
with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
and
necessary.
In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
made
it clear you've seen the threads of the last
few weeks and understand the
concerns that posters have described.
~Nathan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>