Comments:Jimbo Wales to lead development of 'code of conduct' for bloggers

Would you delete content like this?
The Truth about Jimbo or this?

An incredible blunder
The mind-set of contributing would face the limiting mind-set of judgement with this "code of conduct".

The Internet is neither old enough nor fully matured to an extent that allows for an appreciation of motivations behind a person's contribution. A contribution cannot be judged with a view towards removing it, and worse, by whom would it be done and with what fairness? Nobody needs to be reminded that censorship is loathed.

Play as they may at Wikia, the real test would be acceptance. Would the Wikimedia foundation hit a million dollars in fund raising donations with the introduction of this kind of attitude? The last Wikimedia fund raising effort did reach its goal, but the one before it did not.

This initiative reeks with instruction creep, smacks at the freedom to comment in the name of civility, and wraps its reasons in a desire to protect people whose ideas would then become shielded by it.

People should be protected in the physical sense. Ideas deserve no refuge. -Edbrown05 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What Eloquence said here in the last paragraph of The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License, speaks as much to the issue of this "code of conduct" as it does to the issue of image licensing;
 * "We need to focus on what is really important."... ''Social networking makes it possible for individuals to organize around particular campaigns, regardless of their ideologies.


 * There is, however, one important truth connected to this argument: hostility hurts us all. When ideology becomes dogma, and when movements become factions, important (essential!) common causes are all too easily set aside. Therefore, the discussion about issues such as this must always be pursued in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. Those who poison this atmosphere with anger and irrational animosity must not be permitted to lead, regardless of how virtuous they may appear.


 * I have no idea of what is going on in the minds of the "higher ups" in the Wikimedia organization. While I support what Eloquence wrote above, I am disturbed that they may be becoming disconnected from what is going on from "down below".

And missing all the fun! -Edbrown05 01:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edbrown05: They are still working
Edbrown05, Comments are still working -:) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, comments are working, what is not working is version history
It is not too far a stetch to imagine that if Wikimedia supports removing version history of an article, that it will also support removing comment history of an article. To me, this Jimbo and Wikia move is a preface to thinking that may later be applied to Wikimedia.

Tranparency is, or should I say was, the concept upon which the wiki software was built. It appears to be under assault. -Edbrown05 08:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, and Eloquence kind of pisses me off the way he stepped into this article with a lack of honesty (or maybe he truly is clueless), 'Discussion' page history has also already been directly attacked here. -Edbrown05 09:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "stepped into this article with a lack of honesty (or maybe he truly is clueless)". you have an opportunity to substantiate this or retract with an apology. if you can't or won't do either, consider urself in violation of WN:E. –Doldrums(talk) 09:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The specific edit that appears "removed" from the archived version of talk on Gilliam's profile talk page is this one:"That is correct, the edit history was moved to prevent the spreading over the internet of the article in its vandalized state.[[User:Jensbn|Jens Nielsen] 10:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)]"The final version of the 'Discussion' page sort of omits that key point.


 * The Sinbad (actor) page, now locked, have histories that do not reflect fact. Is this how wikimedia wishes to proceed, without valid history content?

A couple key points need to be borne in mind. Both the encylopdia content page and a users discussion page have had content deleted with no transparent history of that ever happening. -Edbrown05 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You say history isnt working here, but which page because i can see history for the comments and the article. --Mark Talk 09:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Wikimedia supports removing version history of an article" under extremely limited circumstances, when there are excellent and compelling reasons for their removal - Oversight. if you think this facility is being misused, feel free to complain (where it will be considered, not on the comment page of an unrelated wikinews article). the use of oversight ability is strictly governed by policy. –Doldrums(talk) 09:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

History is governed by oversight? -Edbrown05 09:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean "revision history on wikimedia can be altered by the use of oversight tool?", then the answer is yes. see Oversight or w:WP:Oversight for more. –Doldrums(talk) 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Be blind, I'd be lying if I said wikimedia isn't working towards this by establishing a protocol to do this by removing history and comments. Meanwhile, Eloquence acts like, my words, "oh, we have nothing to do with this." Uhh huh. -Edbrown05 11:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, what does oversight have to do with this. As a user who has oversight (and has access to the oversight logs on wikinews), I can assure you that it was not used here. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why was information removed? Why was it hidden. and who did it and why? Personally, that IMO is an abuse of admin powers. DragonFire1024 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what they're are talking about here. The only thing that was deleted to my knowladge was this comment by EdBrown (admin only link). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)