Comment by Dylan16807
6 years ago
Going through the history of an article counts as digging, and saying that's "on Wikipedia" is pretty misleading.
6 years ago
Going through the history of an article counts as digging, and saying that's "on Wikipedia" is pretty misleading.
By your definition getting anything from a git repository that's not the main branch is digging and saying "it's on git" to a specific branch or tag would be misleading.
The article history of any article is literally available with just one click on Wikipedia. Well, make that two to show a specific version. Getting to the article itself takes more clicks and key presses than that ... so reading Wikipedia at all counts as digging already?
Surely you know that's a strawman. You can do better.
How is it a strawman? The whole concept of Wikipedia revolves around versioning.
Isn't "digging" exactly what a good journalist is supposed to do?
Journalism is not digging for the sake of digging, it's digging for the sake of a story. Revealing Scott's name is not for the sake of a story, it's for the sake of enabling harassment.