I watched the CNN interview that Siegenthaler and Jimbo appeared on.
There was considerable emphasis on bad material still being in
history despite it being removed from the article itself. I don't
think it is unreasonable to remove clearly false material from
history when specifically asked.
In this particular case after Jimbo assuring Siegenthaler that the
history would be cleansed, it would not do to not do so. Sometimes
you must simply accept the consequences of whatever your spokesman said.
In the general case, most articles have something plainly wrong in
them, but that is simply the nature of a wiki.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 6:57 PM, Snowspinner wrote:
1: If we are going to begin protecting pages because
of news
coverage (Which is not unreasonable at all), we should have a
protected template that makes that clear. After all, the first page
people hit is also a place where they are going to want to try to
edit - it's important to take those people and invite them to look
at other pages. I've created [[Template:P-protected]] for this.
2: I understand the need to remove the Siegenthaler libel from the
page history. On the other hand, I think A) It is a matter of
important historical record at this point, and B) It sets an
unseemly precedent. Can we move the deleted history out of that
article and into an archive page, perhaps with a permanant front
page that notes what it is, and that it is a collection of vandalism?
-Phil Sandifer
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l