Wikipedia talk:Viewing of deleted articles by non-administrators

A question: what about copyvios - would they be accessible, and is it OK for them to be accessible? (ok - two questions). -- sannse (talk) 19:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Numerous people have said on the Wikien-l list that we only have to worry about copyvios if the copyright holder specifically requests that they be removed from the database (this can be done by a developer). --Slowking Man 03:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Early vote: Yes, anyone should have access to these articles
 * 1) If and only if a  flag is set. If this flag is not, it should be only for logged in users. Gerritholl 19:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but the poll's not open until November 2nd. - Vague Rant 08:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Actually the poll was never supposed to be opened, because there was no discussion. But whatever. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allowing non-sysops to view deleted pages (from the village pump)
I would like to propose, after discussing it on the #wikipedia IRC channel, that regular users be able to view deleted pages - probably just Special:Undelete/pagename without a restore button. This would make VfU a lot more useful, and help soften the effect that deletion has. The main reasons we delete pages as it is is, as far as I know, is to keep the article namespace clean of non-encyclopedic material, to prevent search engines from archiving this material, and to prevent copyright violations from being on the site. For copyright violations, I'd propose that we simply have a developer remove the page from history as soon as we get a complaint, or have two types of deletion, one of which flags the deleted page as a copyvio and doesn't allow non-sysops to read it. Any suggestions? Yelyos 23:07, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of non-sysops being able to view deleted versions in the interests of transparency - but the copyvios issue would need to be addressed. Although, to be honest, if sysops can view deleted copyvios, we probably have a problem. Copyvios surely need to be hard-deleted as soon as identified? zoney &#09827; talk 23:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Legally, Wikipedia is only required to delete a copyright violation as soon as a complaint is recieved, so we could simply handle the problem by editing the history of pages as soon as we recieve complaints. I'm not sure how scalable this is (I doubt the number of copyright violation notices would be that high), although we could empower some very trusted users (sysops maybe, or a class of 'trusted user' beyond sysop) with the ability to replace history versions of deleted pages with copyright violation notices if it gets overwhelming for the current developers. Yelyos 23:38, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

If this is going to be done, I'd suggest that it be done in a way which allows use of Special:Export for these files. And I repeat my vow to never participate on VfD or VfU again if I'm given access to view deleted articles. anthony (see warning) 00:13, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should I do up a voting page on this? Yelyos 05:20, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea. Out of interest, Anthony, why that vow? Mark Richards 17:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Because the only reason I oppose deletion of articles which contain useful information is because I can't easily access that information after it has been deleted. anthony (see warning) 17:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I oppose this idea. One reason that articles are deleted is because it is not legal for us to distribute them. Keeping a deleted archive for administrative reasons, viewable only by administrators, is very different from having them available for anyone to view.

Another reason for deletion is to prevent people adding inappropriate content or hosting their own site within Wikipedia. If anyone could view deleted content, trolls would host their nonsense at Wikipedia, and people will still be able to see it and link to it. Deletion is supposed to get rid of this stuff.

The legal problems apply not only to copyright violations, which in theory might not need to be removed before a complaint is received, but also libelous and defaming content.

I don't understand the benefits of this proposal. For articles deleted via VfD, there is five days in which to view them anyway, and for speedy deleted articles, the entire content is almost always part of the deletion reason summary.

To avoid the problem of having illegal but deleted content still available, you would need two levels of deletion, where you need another VfD to decide which deleted pages should not be viewable by everyone. VfD itself is not scaling well, so imagine what it would be like to have to vote on every listing twice to see whether it was something that should not be viewable after deletion. You'd also need this vote for every speedy deleted page which at current levels of deletion does not even seem possible. 521 pages were deleted yesterday. I fail to see how a consensus on which should be available for viewing could be reached on so many pages every single day.

Deletion ought to actually mean deletion, not just hidden.

Angela. 02:11, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keeping a deleted archive for administrative reasons, viewable only by administrators, is very different from having them available for anyone to view. What if it were only available to editors?  What if it were only available to editors who specifically requested the ability?  I don't understand the benefits of this proposal. For articles deleted via VfD, there is five days in which to view them anyway, and for speedy deleted articles, the entire content is almost always part of the deletion reason summary.  This is very often not the case with speedy deletions, and backups of the database are not always made within five days.  Also, the text of speedy deletions does not include the history, which is necessary for those who wish to use the content under the GFDL.  This makes it very difficult to view or use deleted articles.  To avoid the problem of having illegal but deleted content still available, you would need two levels of deletion, where you need another VfD to decide which deleted pages should not be viewable by everyone.  This wouldn't have to be decided via another VfD, it could be a simple option given to the admin who makes the deletion.  Deletion ought to actually mean deletion, not just hidden.  Well, it doesn't.  anthony (see warning) 02:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I oppose this idea. Angela speaks my mind regarding most of the problems. Wikipedia's inclusion policy is broad, and despite the level of acrimony at VfD, there are extremely few articles that are deleted that are useful to anyone in any way at all. We already have problems with advocacy sites deep-linking to a particular version of a Wikipedia article that reflects their POV. Permitting casual users to view deleted pages would pose this same problem, and would pose the problem of title spam as seen in the alt.* newsgroup hierarchy.

uc 14:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's inclusion policy is broad, and despite the level of acrimony at VfD, there are extremely few articles that are deleted that are useful to anyone in any way at all. Maybe if you consider thousands to be extremely few.  We already have problems with advocacy sites deep-linking to a particular version of a Wikipedia article that reflects their POV.  Why is this a problem?  Your use of the term deep-linking is especially suspect.  That's a term which is generally used by proprietary sites.  It brings up images of Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com Inc., where Ticketmaster tried to claim that making web links was actually illegal.  Deep Linking is Good Linking.  Permitting casual users to view deleted pages would pose this same problem, and would pose the problem of title spam as seen in the alt.* newsgroup hierarchy.  There's no reason we have to permit casual users.  The proposal specifically says "regular users", and we could restrict it even more than that, to "users who specifically request it".  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added a proposal to Viewing deleted articles. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was thinking earlier today that I would like to look at and evaluate an article that was VfD, astrochicken. I actually voted for deletion, but I am now thinking that I was wrong for doing so, as I have subsequently encountered this idea of Freeman Dyson's a number of times. In any case, before bothering an admin to help me, I found that I could actually still view this article at a number of wikipedia's content-mirrors. It made me wonder how long those mirrors keep stuff that we have long ago deleted. func (talk) 03:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It will be available forever on McFly (currently at http://www.mcfly.org/en/astrochicken ). anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Close this poll?
I propose this poll close at 0:00 UTC on December 17th (45 days after it started). It's been open quite long enough. &mdash; Dan | Talk 18:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine by me... although I only did just find out about it. But then again, I don't pay attention to these sorts of things generally. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:25, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * As there was no protest, the poll is now closed. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I propose to reopen the poll at 0:00 UTC on March 20th. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 11:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, exactly? Seems to me there was a good turnout, and since it was open for more than a month, its results should be a good gauge of community opinion. &mdash; Dan | Talk 13:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It was closed a few months ago, and community opinion may have changed. There has been some discussion recently of this on the mailing list.  I'm not sure why the poll was ever closed in the first place.  It's also strange to call such a small number of people a good turnout.  Maybe compared to other polls it's high, but it's a very small percentage of editors.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that in only four months opinion has changed sufficiently that you can get consensus to let people view deleted articles?
 * A consensus? No, I doubt there will be a consensus. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)