ADMIN/MEMB: Damn. Scrubbing again.

[heiditandy]

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:

> I proposed a policy in Messages 2320 and 2328.  
> 

> Amanda and Abigail replied and objected.  

Actually, so did I. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-
FAQ/message/2300 was the post. 



Cindy also wrote: 
> The FAQ list already *has* a policy (we scrub if and when we bring 
in
> new members, and this is done to protect new members from reading
> embarrassing mentions of themselves). It works *fine.* We have 
never,
> *ever* had a problem with it, so far as I know. We rarely even 
need to
> *think* about it. No one has provided a single reason why the 
status
> quo needs to be disturbed.

And I guess my reply to this issue, in particular, is somewhat 
belated, but better late than never, no?

I'll expand on my position a bit more:

This list is here to HELP us write the FAQs. If someone posts here 
with an url from a post that they think is particularly helpful, and 
lists the writer of that post, and we later invite the writer onto 
the FAQ list and our policy is to scrub all mentions of that writer 
from the files, we've just lost a useful bit of information. 

Has that happened to date? I have no idea. 

Could it happen? It's certainly possible. And that, very simply, is 
why I think that scrubbing all mention of a potential FAQlister from 
the files is a mistake, and should not be done. Not going forward. 
Not going backwards. Not at all. 

HOWEVER, if someone wants to cull through the archives and give 
links to all the posts that mention someone, and if there is true 
consensus (ie no dissentors) we can delete the post, I would have no 
objection to that being the going-forward policy. 

Heidi

PS - Yes, I know someone is going to say that we only should delete 
things that are negative, but then, what if someone discussed a few 
posts, including a post that had a new idea but was written with a 
few grammar errors, and perhaps posted that "the theory in this 
needs to be in an FP - as long as we paraphrase, so we don't include 
that bizzare comma usage!" - well, that is somewhat negative, isn't 
it, but still a useful bit of information. 


> I would like to keep the status quo intact and *move on,* myself.
> 
> So if everyone thinks the status quo is just fine, then we are done
> here. If someone has a good reason why we need to *change* our
> scrubbing policy, perhaps they could state what that reason is so 
we
> could consider it? Otherwise, I really think we are in very good 
shape
> here.
> 
> **************************
> 
> There were no objections and no further discussion.  I thought we 
were
> finished.
> 
> OK.  Well, it seems that we have to decide this scrubbing issue 
before
> we bring in new people so perhaps we should do so as quickly as we 
can
> so we don't further delay the arrival of our new members.
> 
> 
> Amanda:
> 
> >I definitely had never, before the recent discussions, 
> > been aware that this took place, and I object to it, and I 
honestly 
> > apologize if a silence imposed by my not noticing a poll go by, 
let 
> > it seem that I agreed.
> 
> No, no poll.  I had really hoped we could handle this with a 
consensus
> proposal.
> 
> I suppose, then, that we need to consider two separate policies, 
one
> for messages already in our archives and one for future messages --
> the latter messages to be written with full knowledge of what our
> scrubbing policy will be.  A comprehensive proposal, then  . . . 
> 
> First, we should confirm that we will delete archived posts bearing
> the "MEMB" prefix that contain unflattering references.  That was 
the
> whole point of the prefix.  
> 
> Second, we must consider past messages in the archives that were
> written either: (1) by FAQers who had no idea that the archives 
would
> be scrubbed to delete insulting or offensive references to arriving
> members, or (2) by FAQers who *did* know that the archives would be
> scrubbed and made candid assessments in reliance on the belief that
> such remarks would be deleted before new FAQ members arrived.
> 
> I propose that these messages by scrubbed.  Group 1 adherents 
probably
> didn't say anything offensive anyway, but we can't be certain about
> which FAQers had an accurate understanding of our scrubbing 
policy. 
> Group 2 surely understood, though, and it would be *wrong* to 
change
> the rules retroactively as to Group 2, who relied on the scrubbing
> policy in deciding what to say in the past.
> 
> For future posts (defined as posts written after we formally decide
> this issue), I would propose that posts bearing the "MEMB" prefix 
be
> scrubbed (meaning deleted if they contain objectionable references 
to
> incoming members).  I would propose that anyone can delete their 
own
> posts anytime for any reason.  I would propose that if someone 
quotes
> someone else's statement that contains objectionable references, 
then
> the original author can instruct that the post be deleted (don't 
quote
> others if you wish to be absolutely sure your words will remain in 
the
> archives indefinitely).
> 
> Finally, I propose that whoever scrubs the archives retain a copy
> off-list of whatever is scrubbed *or* forward the scrubbed post to 
its
> author for safekeeping before deleting it.  Anyone who wishes to 
make
> sure they have a complete archive of everything ever posted here
> should change their delivery option to "Individual E-mail" 
or "Daily
> Digest."  This way, no history will be lost.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> Amanda:
> 
> > I, speaking only as a FAQ member and not caring what other lists 
do, 
> > won't agree to a standard scrubbing policy that extends past one 
> > poster's right to delete their own words.
> 
> I assume that you'll abide by the group decision, though.  Am I 
right?
> 
> Cindy