[WikiEN-l] Oversight log

Thu Jun 22 22:23:05 UTC 2006

Andrew Gray wrote:

> And the risk *is* great - I've dealt with a suprising number of emails
> to the info-en address which complain about their article and say
> *someone else told them*. What if that someone else is the employer,
> the client... the schools inspector?
> 
> We cannot be held legally liable for everything that's there. We may
> not even be legally liable for leaving it up once they've told us it's
> there (though I'm sure that question will be tested by someone
> somewhere someday). But we are *morally* liable if we don't at least
> try to do something about helping a person who, through no fault of
> their own, is suffering from the misuse of our resources. It's simple
> humanity.
> 
> And on the first part... if we're deleting these things, expunging
> them totally, is there any *reason* for the log to be public? Any at
> all? Oversight, perhaps. But... what effect does this oversight have?
> Are we really, honestly, concerned about the dozen people with this
> capacity using it in some nefarious way to win arguments or to rewrite
> history? I sound like I'm attacking a strawman here, but I honestly
> don't think I've seen a good reason why people think this tool is
> dangerous. Please, someone, give me a scenario where this could be
> used badly, where the ability to expunge deleted revisions is somehow
> harmful in a way that a public log would prevent...
> 

I agree totally with much of what you say here.  The only thing I'll 
disagree with is that I would say there /is/ a risk of harm from misuse. 
  One problem is that using this facility can distort the history. 
Anything added in a deleted edit, and not reverted in later edits, will 
be attributed to the wrong editor when the deletion is done.  This can 
happen with normal deletions, but at least there it's easy for a lot of 
people to see the real story.

The other risk is it being used to remove information that it's 
important for the community to know.  Removing problem edits to hide 
them from arbitrators for example.

The first is a necessary evil, but a reason for care and a record of 
deletions viewable by some.  The second is less likely, and not a 
problem when those with oversight can see what each other are doing and 
what has been deleted.

I think the current system is the best balance.  Those with oversight 
are responsible for ensuring that none of the group misuse or overuse 
this ability, but the information is cleanly removed from view.

-- sannse