Why Migration Discussion

To do: combine SiteOfChristianPages and this page into one singular page.

Remaining fragments from a seminal event [?] in WikiHistory or WhyHistory

... we currently need help on WhyClublet with the HistoryOfHistory [still do in fact], if anyone on Wiki knows anything about this. Work in this one area does not imply the need to disagree violently with anyone on other controversial pages, or even to know that they exist. ... I've just overwritten an original Why migration notice. I've been known to EditRadically here in the past and would like people to note my restraint - and that of the rest of Wiki - in this area. Thank you to everyone for the high level of cooperation on this ten months ago [so this must have been written in September 2001]. A lot of these original Why pages could now be deleted on Wiki [they have been, ages back] ... A key point arising from PrayingForAmerica on NineEleven and all the other pages that were then produced is now made in DifferentHostingPolicies. ... Wiki should do everything it can to keep people like PeterMerel. The End. -- RichardDrake

Deletion of signed testimony by the hugely anonymous

One of the interesting aspects of the week's editing on Wiki when the controversy about the Eastern pages was at its height was the speedy deletion of signed testimony (as opposed to opinion). The deletes removed removed the offending items from EditCopy as well, by the time I for one reached RecentChanges, for example on CategoryEasternThought. That page was where I had worked hard to keep for "posterity" PeterMerel's signed testimony in which he pointed out these rather salient facts: Peter had been by far the main author of the so-called Eastern pages in the first place, which he later spent his very limited and valuable time moving to WhyClublet, with Ward's full permission and with no warning of any problem from anyone else. Peter also expressed that he was unlikely to take part in Wiki much in future, because of the stupid and unjust criticism generated, a point which led to my warning now at the foot of DeleteAnonymousAccusations.

Given the heated debate on the subject, started by the normal anonymous "nitwits" as Peter called them, signed testimony from Peter or myself on the subject should never have been removed from Wiki. I suggest that it should be the job of all upstanding Wikizens or RecentChanges junkies to ensure this in future. Those who remove signed testimony without permission of the original authors should quite simply be considered a menace to the community. (Note that I refer here to "signed testimony", not signed responses to anonymous accusations that express an opinion but claim no direct connection with the events in question.)

If the removers are anonymous and if they happen to be the same people who started the accusations in the first place then we need to face up to the following:

Wiki could have been attacked at times in a much more subtle way than most people have given credence to
The only way to deal with such an attack would be at source. A social norm to DeleteAnonymousAccusations, without even thinking about it. Being more careful with anything signed, and preserve signed testimony very carefully indeed, at least where there is reasonable evidence that RealNamesPlease applies.

-- RichardDrake