Sometimes Information is important. It can make a difference not to contact a
sysop in order to know what was it about, speeding up content creation.
Personally, I believe that if you don't want to disclose information too much
there, a good compromise is to make more users access the deleted versions.
Patrollers, but even some type of auto-patrolled users should be able to do
that. I mean if there is a decent user who you can trust reading the content
and putting a deletion template, than making them read it should not be a
problem. Think about copyviol: adapting a deleted text or recovering sources is
much faster if you can access it directly. Also, the whole history of a deleted
page should be by default visible, not hidden (maybe some specific summary if
necessary).
Transparency means that completely hiding is the exception, not the standard,
as much as possible. So if it were up to me I would reorganize in a way that
local communities can rearrange the users who can access such versions with
wider audience, or that a hint of what was there should be generally given if
not libelous.
Also, over-hiding deleted information might lead to sloppy quality of
deletions. It happened to me at least twice to hear sysop personally
complaining that a certain deletion was excessive but the social strong
peer-pressure make them uncomfortable to raise the issue. More transparency
would clearly reduce these social mechanisms, increasing trust.
It's in any case dysfunctional to treat all deletion cases the same way, that's
why local communities should assume a clear public responsibility for adopting
the most drastic strategy. It should be a deliberate and widely discussed
choice, never a feature kept with no clear responsibility. In one way or in
another.
A.M.
Il martedì 18 gennaio 2022, 09:23:03 CET, effe iets anders
<effeietsand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
The main advantage I can see, is that it requires a conscious decision to not
be transparent, rather than a conscious effort to be transparent. There are
many cases where deletion is warranted, but the content is not of the type that
including a sample would be harmful. So from the point of view of an early
community, I can definitely see why this functionality would be desirable.
The question becomes how that balance works out by now: do we need reminders to
be transparent to non-admins about our actions? In what percentage of cases do
we want to be transparent? And how likely is it that the admin forgets the
default, and accidentally publishes the summary, when they wouldn't want to?
This trade-off may be different from community to community.
Just a thought, definitely appreciate it when communities think about these
settings rather than accepting that it is the way it has always been!
Lodewijk
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:35 PM Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:
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 it useful?
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:
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, because administrators in these wikis
essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it
work.
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Thanks!
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZONY3L5LEPO45POJ2SWTPHKFFIJ63UR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
|
|
Virus-free. www.avg.com
|
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VSGPRXX2MQKPG7PBYZAQHSONNLQAUNWE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R7DJ6U5QDSPM3FKPK2OB3RONDA7PJMSD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KXYH6ZLU3MFOFG6R5EG22TEGBKCWZRY2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
