Re: Musing on Monastery Content

[BrowserUk]

It's fairly clear that this sites administrators have the right to (and do) admininster the site in whatever way they see fit.

I think the question of copyright has little or nothing to do with it. No one is asked if they wish to sign over their rights to what they post here, but it seems fairly obvious that having posted there words into this public domain, they have lost the right to retain control over them. Whether this is the strictly legal position in any or all legal systems is probably mute. Noone is going to try and sue to obtain the right to have their words modified or removed.

Comparisons between posts on this site and either face-toface conversations, or magazine articles are also off base because of scope and time.

In a face-to-face, the numbers of people hearing the conversation is very limited, and human beings have the habit of forgetting stuff (whether through time or choice). So the scope is limited to those that choose to remember the words, and the numbers are involved maybe a few 10s of people.

With a (printed) magazine, there is almost certainly an explicit signing over of (joint) copyright or similar legal transfer or co-ownership involved. The numbers of people is also limited. It maybe 10s of thousands in a few of the larger circulation magazines, but in many cases less. Time is also a factor. After some period of time, only a few people will remember that a particular author said a particular thing--except for those rare things that really stir the imagination for better or worse. Even if a researcher is looking for statements made by a particular author, unless they know that the author wrote for the magazine in question and obtain back copies, the words they wrote are unlikely to resurface a year or so later.

With open, on-line forums such as this place, it becomes pretty easy for a persons words to be found by anyone making a casual search. Future employers, spouses, whomever. From anywhere in the world, at a moments notice. The implications are wide.

The more interesting question is why the administrators of this place feel the need to retain an authors words after they have expressed a wish to have them removed.

One argument is that headless threads devalue the responses of others. Many threads contain links to offsite resources. When these resources change, the links are broken. Does that devalue the threads in question? Should we arrange to capture the content of external links at the time of posting so as to maintain the integrity of the the site?

A second opinion is that others can learn from a persons mistakes. Then maybe we should not have the ability to edit posts--only add to them. That way, we can all learn from everyones typos, grammer corrections, case corrections, formatting changes. We will all becomes perfect spellers, with impecable grammer and ace HTMLers over night.

Another expressed opinion is that the knowledge that your words can be reinstated against your wish should prevent people from posting anything that they will later be ashamed of or embarassed by. In other words, reinstatement is a punishment that can be inflicted upon those that make mistakes and attempt to correct them. Crime and punishment. Has a nice ring. Reflects the values of society.

Though you know, in society, one has a right to trial, and at least notionally, the opportunity to influence the lawmakers and even change the laws. I do not see any similar mechanisms here.

[ww]

++ on overall post and especially on your list of rationales for restoration or against deletion (despite a strawman or two), but quibble re last graf: Isn't a discussion like this a mechanism to influence the gods? <G>

[BrowserUk]

Isn't a discussion like this a mechanism to influence the gods?

Well yes, I suppose it is and maybe that's why I wrote it. However, over the last 3 years I have seen this subject, and many others, come up every 3 months or so.

The usual form is that one or other of the gods will restate the status quo, or point to previous discussion that does same, to much applause. There then follows a raft of support for the status quo, and few discenting voices against. The discenting posts are either downvoted, summarly dismissed, or ignored.

And the status quo continues.

Search as hard as I might (and I have), I have yet to see the discussion where the status quo was arrived at--and I conclude that things are, the way it was decided by the gods way back when, and thats the way it will stay.

I've also yet to see any occasion where the status quo was over turned on any meaningful subject.

Now, it could be that the status quo is also the general concensus, and for that reason, should remain that way. On the other hand, it could be that the site administrators simply have no intention of changing anything.

[apotheon]

Such mechanisms do exist, just as they do for the creation of that "punishment". The mechanisms are ad hoc, mutable, and social in nature, however. They are not set in stone, explained in detail in a site use license, or otherwise strictly codified. That is, I think, appropriate for a website devoted to a community effort with an open source modus operandi.

The key item to consider, here, is that nobody's natural rights are being violated. The rest is just flavoring. I happen to very much like the "flavor" of PerlMonks.