[WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout

Thu Dec 15 07:13:53 UTC 2005

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Matt Brown wrote:
>  
>
>>My belief is that in general we should not remove things from page
>>history so easily.
>>    
>>
>My belief is that in general we should be aggressive about removing
>vandalism from the page history.  If there was an automated way to go
>through on a regular basis and remove reverted versions from the
>history, I would strongly support that we do so.
>
>The only sensible counter-argument I know of in this area is a concern
>for future historians or contemporary researchers who would like to
>study the phenomenon of vandalism.  For this, it seems more than enough
>to make such revisions available in some limited-access way.  There's
>just no reason to keep this junk cluttering up the publicly-viewable
>article history.
>
My concern about these deletions is somewhat different.  It is about 
being seen as selective about our history.  Idiots say idiotic things, 
after which remains the fact that they said them.  Being willing to 
delete the record when the complainer is sufficiently notable gives the 
wrong impression that we are willing to do their bidding.  I wouldn't be 
surprised if we already had libelous material on less notable 
individuals; the target just doesn't know about it.  If he did he might 
still not be in a position to act on it. 

I do agree, however, that limited access is acceptable, and that in 
ordinary circumstances this material is of no value to the general public.

Ec