--- Comment #22 from MZMcBride <b...@mzmcbride.com> ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Oversight was also specifically advertised as *complete removal including
> publicly viewable logs* while suppression has always been advertised as
> leaving the date/time of revision and all unsuppressed aspects of
> the revision in place and publicly accessible.
Advertised by whom? If we take every Oversighted edit and set it to the maximum
suppression level, what social contract is being violated? Can you explain
_specific problems_ with taking this approach? Not abstract problems about
vague promises made a half-decade ago, but actual problems (technical or
otherwise) that will arise.
Is the issue really that today's oversighters will see previously inaccessible
Is a CIA operative in Guatemala going to lose his life because we've revealed
the _timestamp_ of an edit from five years ago?
> Thus, while this is a technical change, it is also a change in the social
> contract directly affecting both users and BLP subjects. Perhaps that
> assurance should not have been made, but it was, and it was based on the best
> information available at the time.
The "best information" at the time was that Oversight was a hack that would one
day be replaced. I don't think anyone made a promise that edits that were
Oversighted were permanently gone. In fact, quite the opposite: they _could_
still be retrieved, which everybody knew.
> So...we're in a difficult situation here.
I don't think this is a difficult situation. This feature almost certainly
isn't going into MediaWiki core. The remaining question is what will happen to
particular Oversighted edits on a single particular (and peculiar) wiki, which
frankly is outside the scope of this bug report. You probably want bug 32628.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list