o4 Mirror: LINK
Context
Recently, a user deleted many of their articles, and requested staff delete certain articles which they were unable to delete. A number of these articles were considered "significant" and/or were well known, such as an 001 proposal, several series I, II and III articles.
This has prompted concerns regarding the deletion of significant or load-bearing articles.
Deletion
Deletion of a work on the SCP Wiki is an irreversible process.
While various backups of works do exist and can theoretically be re-uploaded, a lot of information is lost, including comments, page history and rating, as well as attribution data.
Even if this information is recorded somewhere, it can never be re-implemented in the same way.
Administrators and Moderators of the SCP wiki have the ability (though not the permission) to delete any page on the wiki.
The only other person with the ability to delete pages is the creator of a page, its author.
It is possible to prevent the editing or deletion of a page by everyone except Administrators and Moderators by 'locking' the page. This even prevents the author from deleting or editing the page (unless they are an Administrator or Moderator)
The "locking" of a page is typically done to prevent the editing of pages which are targeted by trolls, frequently edited incorrectly, or by request of the author.
Typical Deletions
Deletions happen every day on the SCP wiki. At times users delete their own works, and in some situations staff deletes works.
Staff mostly deletes works which fall below our deletion threshold (-10 rating), pages which are blank, pages which are spam/troll pages, pages which are out of range.
For the most part, users are able to delete their own works. However, in some cases, staff deletes pages on the behalf of its author(s), in cases where they unable to do so due to account access, account membership, or if staff has chosen to lock the page. Users may also simply request that staff does the deletion, in some circumstances.
For a more detailed explanation regarding deletion procedures on the wiki visit:
The Deletions Guide for an explanation on deletions.
The Staff Deletions Guide for a more detailed explanation on aspects of deletions.
The Current Deletions Thread for the announcing of deletions by staff members and why they were enacted.
Problem
While we are a collaborative writing project we often strive to maximize author autonomy, including rewriting and/or deleting one's own work. While this is typically unproblematic, there are certain works on the site which are foundational to canons, settings or iconic/classic to SCP as a whole.
Works like SCP-173, SCP-096, SCP-682, SCP-914 and kcon winners among other are in many ways important and/or load bearing works. Many pieces, if deleted, could cause contextual problems for other works or adaptations as well as confuse or disappoint fans of the site.
Under the license that SCP works are released we could very well choose NOT to delete or change a work, despite the author's wishes.
A lot of people have a lot of opinions on this intersection of author autonomy vs preservation and our nature as a collaborative writing project. Discussion of this has been prompted by the aforementioned deletion of works which some consider important.
This thread has been created as a centralized place to discuss the topic.
Central Questions
1. Staff balances authorial will with the community. In terms of important works, what should we prioritize?
2. Should we ever refuse to delete a work if an author requests it? If so, in what situations?
3. What makes a work important? How do we quantify this?
4. Can an important work ever lose its importance? If so, how do we quantify this?
Proposed Solutions
Various solutions have already been proposed. Two of them are detailed below in collapsibles.
Additional Context
When discussing this topic, I think it is important to be aware of discussions and/or policies which have come before, in a similar vein.
The Heritage Collection an archived page which includes a list of articles deemed significant at the time of its maintaining, and guidelines used to determine their significance
Archiving to save significant pages within the deletion range was an older policy which has since fallen out of favor.
Ending the Archival Progress the 2021 vote that ended the archival process.
Archived Pages Revisit which discusses handling ARC pages through the Rewrite sub-team of Curations.
(Discussed in October 2024, has not gone to a vote or been implemented)
'Historical or Significant' Article Rewrite Policy which proposes definitions for historical or significant articles, and proposes restrictions on their rewriting.
(Discussed in August of 2024, has not gone to a vote or been implemented)
Codification of articles that are immune to deletion which is a discussion on the codification of articles that are already immune to deletion.
Mass Deletion Request Discussion A discussion in 2021 regarding a user requesting the deletion of nearly 300 pages.
Deleting Bright's articles, an ongoing discussion regarding overriding author autonomy and current deletions procedures to specific articles.
Fiat- Freezing Slots , a recent fiat freezing slots that were recently freed by the same deletion sparking this discussion.