Also, a complete and irreversible deletion of another contributors content may be in violation of the license of some variants of the Creative Commons license. Removing something completely (rather than 'burying' it into archives) may be against the rules. I know it's a violation of the "GPL docs" license, and I know it was questioned in another list I'm on, with no clear out come of the discussion..
Far better than a purge is IMHO to make select content viewable by admin's only. Either an exact revision, or the history of the page, or page edit X to edit Z. In cases of slander, personal information posting, etc, it make a clear record that can be had to show why a decisions was made, but still removes the stuff from circulation. I think that provides the protection needed, without as many possible moral or (very unlikely) legal problems. I can see cases where Making full 'purge' is still needed. But I think making that available should be double checked (via password reentry maybe?) and logged. - Far On 5/17/07, Graham Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 17 May 07, at 15:52, Adam Dewitz wrote: > > > Explain why it's bad mojo. And don't think in terms of RocWiki or > > some other community-based wiki. > > > > A 'behind the scenes method' would defeat the purpose. I can already > > do this at the CLI. I want something that is in the Sycamore > > interface. > > > > AD > > > > How can the community police itself when a given single member of the > community can unilaterally "disappear" content without a trace? > > Graham > > > _______________________________________________ > Sycamore-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.projectsycamore.org/ > https://tools.cernio.com/mailman/listinfo/sycamore-dev > _______________________________________________ Sycamore-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.projectsycamore.org/ https://tools.cernio.com/mailman/listinfo/sycamore-dev
