[CIMC-work] Deleting posts from the newswire

[ChrisGeovanis at aol.com]

OK, we're making progress. Ian writes:

>It does seem annoying that it's easy to delete from the article summary
>screen, but you have to go to individual articles to hide stuff.  It 
>seems like it should be the other way around.

So, Ian, can this be fixed? It is so backward.

ALSO, I think we are getting somewhere in terms of generating doc that 
describes hiding vs deleting. See Ian's ad hoc proposal below:

IAN: The only reason to use delete is if you encounter a bandwidth thief -- 
someone who is posting images to CIMC that they link to from elsewhere 
(so they don't care if you hide it).  Or deleting your own articles, 
that's fine.  Dups would probably also be fine, though I'd be cautious 
in that case.

CHRISTINE: This seems reasonable to me. Is there consensus on this? HOWEVER, 
again, can we fix the code so hiding is easier than deleting? 

christine


In a message dated 3/11/04 11:31:41 AM Central Standard Time, 
ianb at colorstudy.com writes:


> Subj:Re: [CIMC-work] Deleting posts from the newswire 
> Date:3/11/04 11:31:41 AM Central Standard Time
> From:ianb at colorstudy.com
> To:ChrisGeovanis at aol.com
> CC:imc-chicago-working at indymedia.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> > Huh. Looked at the 'hidden' posts and found this one: 
> > http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/37471/index.php
> > "Bush must apologize for his lies, or we will kill our pets", by ... 
> > John P. Wagner! Did somebody delete 37489 because it was a dupe? 
> 
> No, I think this other article was a complaint about the first article 
> being hidden.  The hidden article was an article accusing CIMC of 
> censorship.
> 
> > And if 
> > so (Ian, yer thoughts, specifically) does this actually violate 
> > editorial policy? In any event, we should clarify the difference between 
> > 'hide' and 'delete', to the end of avoiding the 'delete' feature, (I 
> > guess, but I dunno, what do people think...). 
> 
> The only reason to use delete is if you encounter a bandwidth thief -- 
> someone who is posting images to CIMC that they link to from elsewhere 
> (so they don't care if you hide it).  Or deleting your own articles, 
> that's fine.  Dups would probably also be fine, though I'd be cautious 
> in that case.
> 
> > Also, I ran a search 
> > against 'Wagner' as 'author/provider' -- and the only hit that came up 
> > was the 'hidden' post, not the deleted one. Does 'search' not show 
> > 'deletes', even though the record of same lives on? Also, I appreciate 
> > that the new code makes it easier to 'hide' comments that seem to 
> > violate editorial policy and am fine with this, but sometimes it 
> > disrupts a comments thread that might be better left standing, so I 
> > would appeal to people to keep an eye on continuity issues where 
> > appropriate.
> 
> I haven't found a way to find out more about deleted articles.  There is 
> some evidence that remains in the database about them -- the reason for 
> deleting.  But I only saw that because I had a link from before the 
> article was deleted.  There must be some way to look at deleted 
> articles, but I don't know what.
> 
> It does seem annoying that it's easy to delete from the article summary 
> screen, but you have to go to individual articles to hide stuff.  It 
> seems like it should be the other way around.
> 
>    Ian
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-chicago-working/attachments/20040311/1443d969/attachment.html