in reply to why a nodelet can be kept agains author wish?

Why should it not be allowed? Because it is not allowed in real life. How many times have you said "I wish I hadn't said that"? How many times has your wish been fulfilled? Besides which, what's a little negative XP going to do to you? In the grand scheme of things, not a whole lot. Just as in life, you roll the dice every time you say something. To alter the past is unethical.


  • Comment on Re: why a nodelet can be kept agains author wish?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: why a nodelet can be kept against author wish?
by stefp (Vicar) on Jul 14, 2002 at 16:25 UTC
    Reaped nodes are still accessible, that was my point that I dropped when it was said in effect: "it is better to edit the node to comment about the error than asking for shoving it under the carpet".

    You are probably right about the unethicality of altering the past on perlmonks. But even without manipulation, media are always rehashing the past in new ways. Before modern media analysis a la Mc Luhan, the greek philosophers were already poundering of the complex relations between the past and the present. Anyway, with wayback, it becomes dangerous to erase the past because it is so easy to unearth it. Example: the MS diatribe against Linux. The original Microsoft URL gives a 404, but you can find it here for a good laugh. Hum, perlmonks seems to cook the URL in weird way. So I spell out the URL.

    -- stefp -- check out TeXmacs wiki