Steve Block wrote:
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?
I would disagree. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to
libel suits.
I don't believe that's true. When newspapers have been sued for libel,
typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement,
i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the
offending article from their archives, which for historical archival
purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
-Mark