On 6/22/06, James <user_jamesday(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
> The
suitable initial group seems clear enough: every
administrator.
1000 people? That's an absurdly large group. As it is there are
administrators digging up deleted articles and posting them on other
websites.
This isn't about publishing deleted articles.
No, it's about reliability of admins when it comes to deleted information.
> Beyond
that, the censored log should be available to everyone.
> Administrators often have more than enough to do and any
assistance
non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
No, the log should not be available to everyone. I can't see what
possible good that could come from it, and the log itself could be
used to reveal the very kinds of things it is intended to conceal
(e.g. personal information).
It's good to have the largest practical group able to examine our
actions. That increases the chance that enough people will take an
interest and provide effective questioning of actions.
Right, and that group consists of around 20 highly trusted editors.
That's the largest *practical* number. 1000 is a completely
impractical number that will significantly raise the risks of doing
damage.
> Removing
the page isn't close to sufficient - it conceals what is
> perhaps the most significant part of what is being overseen: who
is
doing
what, where and still concealed from most, why.
What's the danger here? What horrible thing will happen if some
edit
disappears from the history?
Nothing harmful at all will happen if all the actions are in accord
with policy.
And what harm will happen if the actions are not in accord with policy?
If someone uses the capability to hide edits that are
uncomplimentary
to them or simply make a project look bad in a news story, when the
project did actually have a problem then that would be an entirely
different and problematic mater.
Huh? You mean in an article about themselves? And how could they
make the project look bad in a news story?
Things like "we screwed up" or "yes,
that was a bad edit" aren't what this capability is for. Oversight is
about making sure that the capability isn't misused in this sort of
way, however much we all want to be perfect and might be tempted to
try to look better than we are.
I've seen no evidence anyone has even contemplated using it that way.
And why would they? It seems completely farfetched.
Jay.