Also, a quick note: People have a way of finding out if an admin is being abusive: it's pretty obvious and people tend to remember when their contributions are erased without a trace.
What should the commuity's recourse be to a bad apple? That's something we can talk about on the wikispot-talk list, because it's sort of an upper-level administrative decision. (Some folks at the http://wikispot.org/Launch talked about this and I think we have a handle on how to do this without being fascists pricks). --Philip On 5/17/07, Philip Neustrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
