But: * There's a good, extensive article in the 'pedia * Some troll deletes it (leaving the history intact) * To everyone, it seems that there is no article * Someone writes a two-line stub, not realizing that there's a much better article in the history This would not be good, right?
I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and some of the empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the database.
Magnus
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:48 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] meta namespace?
Magnus Manske wrote:
- Should we introduce some users with a "trusted" status? So some "old
hands" could do some maintnance, like permanently deleting
obsolete pages,
without access to the really crucial functions like direct
database access.
One idea I had seems very doable and very useful.
One of the main reasons we want to delete some pages is so that underlined links go back to being questionmark links, tempting the reader to write something. (And also making the link show up on most requested, and so on.)
For that purpose, the side-effect of deletion, which is to delete the history as well, is just that: a side-effect. We don't really need it.
Since any user can delete all the text anyway, it would not hurt for them to be able to delete the page, too.... that is, IF they don't also automatically delete the history.
There can be reasons to delete the history, of course! Sometimes the history will just be so very wrong that we must delete it. Maybe it will be a copyright violation, or maybe it will be just really mean-spirited or something.
But in most cases where we want to delete pages, they're just silly, and there's not much harm done in leaving the history.
--Jimbo [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l