Dave McKee wrote:
1) Whilst I accept that Wikipedia requires a total
deletion system in
some cases, what are the accepted administrative reasons behind
deletions?
Just speaking off the top of my head, I think that total deletions
seldom make sense. They should be reserved primarily for pages that
are just completely mistaken (typos, unlikely misspellings), or for
pages that are nothing more than insults.
Another class of pages for which total deletion makes sense would be
for legitimate page titles with totally nonsensical content. A total
deletion is better than a page clearing, because it restores the ?
link on pages that may mention this page, thus alerting us that it
needs fixing.
For example, a couple of days ago I noticed that we didn't have a page
on Colin Powell, while reading a page about the current effort. If
there had been a blank page there, I would not have noticed it, and we
wouldn't have that content now.
2) Are the deletions tracked (even if not available to
the public) in
any way? Is there any way that it can be determined which administrator
has deleted a file (eg: usernames, IP addresses)? If not, is there any
reason why there shouldn't be in the future?
I think it is obvious that pretty much nothing should be done in secret.
of Wikipedia, which is probably Bomis' biggest
asset.
Well, not really. Wikipedia traffic is extraordinarily tiny compared
to our other properties. Nonetheless, I do think Wikipedia is
exciting and promising.
--Jimbo
--
*************************************************
*
http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************