[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Damn. Scrubbing again.

[cindysphynx]

Hi,
 
Heidi wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>>>
 
>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. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
 
Actually, the proposal is to scrub *unflattering* mentions of arriving
list members.  You may recall my exchange here with Melody in which I
proposed her candidacy in a tone that sounded like an afterthought.  I
did not scrub that message because it was not unflattering, although it
was close to the line, nor did I scrub messages that showed Cindy
suggested these five people and Elkins suggested these two and Phyllis
suggested this one.  I think arriving members won't be embarrassed about
knowing who nominated them, generally.  (You'll also notice that my
draft invitation to new FAQers is right there in the archives, which
undoubtedly deflated any new members who thought they had received a
personal letter only to find out it was a form!  <g>"
 
Furthermore, some of our FAQ members had the pleasure of arriving to see
themselves praised.  Those message were not deleted, either.  Indeed,
when I arrived on MEG long ago as a wide-eyed elf, there were positive
messages about me there.  I'm kinda glad they weren't scrubbed because
they did make me feel warm and fuzzy and welcome.  
 
So perhaps we should focus on "unflattering," "insulting,"
"embarrassing" and "awkward" as the appropriate descriptors here.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Heidi:
 
>Has that happened to date? I have no idea. 


>>>>>>>>>>>
 
No, it hasn't.
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
>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. 
 
I agree.  Let's not scrub "all" mentions of arriving FAQers.
 
Again, that is not the proposal on the table.  Search for "Melody" or
"Eric" and see what I mean.  
 
FWIW, the proposal allows for the deleting of messages that do not refer
to an arriving member by name.  For example, if there were a derogatory
reference here to "what's-his-name, you know, the guy from Spain who
advocates MD and wrote the OoP VFAQs," that message would be scrubbed if
it contained any inappropriate remark about "the guy from Spain."  

>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. 
 
This seems needlessly labor-intensive, IMHO.  Surely we won't have
discussions about each post that might be deleted, with debate and
polling and so forth, will we?  And if I say something in a message that
I don't want an arriving member to see, I am surely within my rights to
delete it because I am the author, correct?
 
I think we should just have someone with good judgment go through and
scrub the archives, as explained in the proposal (as was done here in
the past and was done on MEG by one of the Mods).  Close questions and
judgment calls can be called to the attention to the poster off-list
("Are you OK if I leave Message X, 'cause Bill may not like it."), which
has also been done in the past.  Then, when the scrubbing is finished,
the Designated Scrubber can post on the list, "OK, I'm all finished
scrubbing now."  Anyone who wishes to double-check that something got
deleted can search and see if it turns up (mistakes do happen and things
do get missed), and we can take it from there, if necessary.  
 
It happened on the Moderator Team that our Designated Scrubber missed an
embarrassing exchange (MEG discussion of how a reliable list member and
future elf had strayed and whether he/she needed a howler), and the only
way it was caught was when another Mod double-checked and she and I did
an "emergency scrub" because the invitation had just gone out and been
accepted.  Yes, this person knew that he/she received a howler, but I
thought his/her embarrassment would be increased by reading all of
*that.*  Surely, we figured, it was more important to spare this new
elf's feelings than to make sure that the record of her infraction and
the reactions thereto be preserved *on MEG.*  Also, there was an
instance when a *really* important post was deleted, possibly because it
mentioned a newcomer by name in the form of a hypothetical and in a
context that wasn't offensive at all ("It would be like if Tom were a
Shipper . . . ")  Again, a bit of judgment and communication are in
order, but we needn't go overboard with this.


>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
> 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. 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Like I said, we are trying to come up with a workable overall policy.
We won't be able to craft something that fits every conceivable
hypothetical situation, nor should we try.  And if nothing is ever truly
destroyed - because it resides on the hard drives of most current
members --  I think we'll all be safe.
 
If you want, I would be willing to function as Designated Scrubber (if
we go that route) 'cause I know how to do it.  I'm thinking it would not
be an especially difficult job.
 
Cindy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]