Wikipedia has a similar function. If you don't trust the people
running the wiki then there's something wrong to begin with. It was
designed for cases of ridiculous abuse, not every day deletion. Ward
Cunningham routinely went "under the radar" and hand deleted w/o trace
many edits on the c2 wiki for years, and it was seen as the right
thing to do.
There's two modes: normal "permanently delete" and a second toggle for
"don't show change on recent changes". The first step is basically a
purge but it will log that there was a purge on recent changes. The
second step was added after my using the first option for a number of
weeks to remove repeated mass vandalism and my being questioned about
the exact content of every edit ("what did he add to /my/ page?!?").
This is standard-admin-faire as far as controls go. Think about it,
an admin can also lock a page or a whole wiki to editing and there's
nothing the community can do, at least from an automated perspective.
This stuff (locking pages, nuking things) is bad wiki-form, but that
doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.
--Philip
On 5/17/07, Scott Beardsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Freeman wrote:
> > there should be *some* record of data purges
>
> I would tend to agree but as sites grow (think wikipedia) you'll get
> more and more malicious users targeting your site. Imagine a spammer
> creates an account and then creates some questionable content (read:porn
> or viagra spam). They (or another user) then edits the page so that the
> content is removed. The questionable content is still in the page
> history and can be linked to from the internet (I remember Adrian Lamo
> doing something similar using the wayback machine).
>
> My point is, there are benefits from a purge content function. You've
> pointed out some obvious drawbacks to this function so perhaps it should
> be limited to a small group of users. Or perhaps there could be some
> sort of purged content queue where everyone can sift through recently
> purged content looking for info of value thus giving it a chance to be
> restored.
>
> I'm just thinking out loud mainly. How do other wikis handle this?
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> 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
