Back to article
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments
The Truth about Jimbo
or this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.99.214.118 (talk • contribs) 
The mind-set of contributing would face the limiting mind-set of judgement with this "code of conduct". 
The Internet is neither old enough nor fully matured to an extent that allows for an appreciation of motivations behind a person's contribution. A contribution cannot be judged with a view towards removing it, and worse, by whom would it be done and with what fairness? Nobody needs to be reminded that censorship is loathed. 
Play as they may at Wikia, the real test would be acceptance. Would the Wikimedia foundation hit a million dollars in fund raising donations with the introduction of this kind of attitude? The last Wikimedia fund raising effort did reach its goal, but the one before it did not.  
This initiative reeks with instruction creep, smacks at the freedom to comment in the name of civility, and wraps its reasons in a desire to protect people whose ideas would then become shielded by it. 
People should be protected in the physical sense. Ideas deserve no refuge. -Edbrown05 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<font:large>And missing all the fun!</font:large> -Edbrown05 01:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edbrown05, Comments are still working -:) Brian | (Talk) |  06:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not too far a stetch to imagine that if Wikimedia supports removing version history of an article, that it will also support removing comment history of an article. To me, this Jimbo and Wikia move is a preface to thinking that may later be applied to Wikimedia.
Tranparency is, or should I say was, the concept upon which the wiki software was built. It appears to be under assault. -Edbrown05 08:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is correct, the edit history was moved to prevent the spreading over the internet of the article in its vandalized state.Jens Nielsen 10:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)A couple key points need to be borne in mind. Both the encylopdia content page and a users discussion page have had content deleted with no transparent history of that ever happening. -Edbrown05 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
History is governed by oversight? -Edbrown05 09:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments:Jimbo Wales to lead development of 'code of conduct' for bloggers