[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Peter Southwood
If the reason for deletion was to suppress undesirable content, why would one want part of it to remain viewable? Cheers, Peter From: Vi to [mailto:vituzzu.w...@gmail.com] Sent: 17 January 2022 23:45 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Vi to
On it.wiki we removed both this and "the only editor was..." which proved to be misleading for newcomers, e.g. "I don't think that being the sole editor is a valid reason for this deletion". Vito Il giorno lun 17 gen 2022 alle ore 15:19 Amir E. Aharoni < amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: December 2021

2022-01-17 Thread The 'This Month in GLAM' team
*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums. You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Strainu
On ro.wp, we empty the summary when the reason is "Obscene content" and leave it otherwise. For me, it used to be useful as a quick check on admins. However, now that many deletions are made through Twinkle and the Infoboxes are ubiquitous (taking up from the displayed text), this is less useful.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Galder Gonzalez LarraƱaga
This is an interesting point, because many trolls actually WIN when we delete something, because their trolling is there forever. It should be visible for administrators, or if you search for it, but not in the deleted article itself. From: Amir E. Aharoni Sent:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Risker
Thanks for flagging this, Amir. You're right, the reasoning isn't particularly well documented. I've commented on the ticket about the reason English Wikipedia did this, which may be helpful. Risker/Anne On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 at 09:19, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > Hallo! > > There's an old

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
Yes, that's what I imagine. In the Hebrew Wikipedia, this feature is still active, and someone wondered what is it actually good for. When I delete pages, I definitely erase things that may be in any way problematic. And sometimes I delete them even if they aren't. If this feature didn't exist,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Newyorkbrad
The problem with this feature was that when the deleted material was libelous, offensive, etc., it would still automatically be copied into the deletion summary, which served to defeat the entire purpose of deleting it. Newyorkbrad/IBM On Monday, January 17, 2022, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: >

[Wikimedia-l] "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

2022-01-17 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
Hallo! There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later viewable in deletion logs. If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't actually seen this feature in years,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Queering Wikipedia 2022: User Survey

2022-01-17 Thread WM LGBT
Update: The Queering Wikipedia 2022 survey closes in 2 weeks on 31st January. If you are interested in supporting the only global Wikimedia event for LGBTQIA volunteers to share and learn from our experiences, please give feedback to help set the priorities. Survey: