Effective Vandalism -- Experimentation Results Options

[karmafist]

While I don't think it's a good long term strategy, vandalism is a good way to chip away at the credibility of Wikipedia, thus chipping away at the power of the corrupt people who control it.

I did some experiments with another sock, Broad Street, and here's what I found( the contribs are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Broad_Street)



-Make It Fake, and Plausible: Remember Seigenthaler? While that wasn't true, there it wasn't inplausible -- looking at it, you wouldn't say at first glance "this is fake"

-Don't use cultural memes: Everything went swimmingly until I started to use the Colbert Elephant Meme.
People know that's false, so the plausibility goes out the window.

-Make edits slowly: Two days I had three edits, and nobody noticed. The next day I had five, and they caught on.

-Don't have edit summaries: They tend to draw attention, but that's not a hard and fast rule.

-Press the random button and go for lesser known articles: The reversion will be alot faster at say, George W. Bush, than some count from the 18th Century or some long lost theory.

-Remember the IP you're using: They can check that.


Best case scenario -- several new Siegenthaler Crises are made, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia, and its funding, forcing it to either become a corporate shill or charging users for an account(thus removing any pretense of being a "free and unbiased encyclopedia") or forcing them to reform.

Worst case scenario -- the majority of articles on Wikipedia are either protected or abandoned(again, removing the "free" pretense), and all new users are seen as potential suspects, creating an atmosphere where they are unlikely to become wiki-addicts and possibly spread the word of the poor behavior of the Cabalists.

[JohnA]

I wonder if anyone can tell deliberate vandalism designed to bring down Wikipedia from just old-fashioned deliberate vandalism because you're an asshole and the world is watching. Or what passes in Wikipedia as "NPOV".

Its rather like shitting into a sewage farm - yes you're being naughty but who's to notice the difference?

My prediction: what will bring down Wikipedia will not be rampant vandalism or Slimvirgin or Danny's behavior but A BETTER, MORE COMPELLING, ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

There, I've said it.

[karmafist]

I wonder if anyone can tell deliberate vandalism designed to bring down Wikipedia from just old-fashioned deliberate vandalism because you're an asshole and the world is watching. Or what passes in Wikipedia as "NPOV".

Its rather like shitting into a sewage farm - yes you're being naughty but who's to notice the difference?

My prediction: what will bring down Wikipedia will not be rampant vandalism or Slimvirgin or Danny's behavior but A BETTER, MORE COMPELLING, ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

There, I've said it.

I wish I had the resources that Jimbo has to make a fork, but I don't, so that's not a feasible option for me. If you could make a wiki competitor to Wikipedia, i'd join you in a second. Kurt Weber tried awhile ago, but that fizzled out.

Your sewage farm analogy is a good one, but let me expand on it -- does the public at large currently smell that sewage? Or does it smell different to them?

If it's indisputably sewage to the majority of the public, Wikipedia will crumble, either completely(due to lack of donations) or as an encyclopedia, and it'd just become the world's biggest chat forum/meme farm/sophisticated version of myspace ,which is fine with me -- just as long as the corrupt parts of it are destroyed one way or another.

[EuroSceptic]

Humm, what would you change on a wikifork?

[JohnA]

I wonder if anyone can tell deliberate vandalism designed to bring down Wikipedia from just old-fashioned deliberate vandalism because you're an asshole and the world is watching. Or what passes in Wikipedia as "NPOV".

Its rather like shitting into a sewage farm - yes you're being naughty but who's to notice the difference?

My prediction: what will bring down Wikipedia will not be rampant vandalism or Slimvirgin or Danny's behavior but A BETTER, MORE COMPELLING, ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

There, I've said it.

I wish I had the resources that Jimbo has to make a fork, but I don't, so that's not a feasible option for me. If you could make a wiki competitor to Wikipedia, i'd join you in a second. Kurt Weber tried awhile ago, but that fizzled out.

Your sewage farm analogy is a good one, but let me expand on it -- does the public at large currently smell that sewage? Or does it smell different to them?

If it's indisputably sewage to the majority of the public, Wikipedia will crumble, either completely(due to lack of donations) or as an encyclopedia, and it'd just become the world's biggest chat forum/meme farm/sophisticated version of myspace ,which is fine with me -- just as long as the corrupt parts of it are destroyed one way or another.

Mediocrity doesn't smell of anything or taste of anything. But there's lots of it available at no cost.

The greatest barrier to creating a proper online encyclopedia is the software required to encapsulate the process of encyclopedia article production and publication.

The second greatest barrier is admitting that 99.9% of us are not experts at anything, and while we are good at finding stuff, the great majority of us can't write an encyclopedic article, as Wikipedia amply demonstrates.

But the first barrier is the main barrier. Without proper software and infrastructure to enforce the proper quality system, we'd end up producing another Wikipedia.

Above all, in order for an online general reference encyclopedia to flourish, it must be fruitful for all participants - satisfying intellectually, rewarding financially and reputationally. I don't see very many people saying in job interviews that they contribute articles to Wikipedia (because it would be a dealbreaker), but if someone had contributed articles to, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, then they'd be sure to mention it.

Contributing to a proper online encyclopedia should attract experts rather than repel them.

As a final thought, if I were to set up an Encyclopedia, Rule 1 would be: Full Names only, no anonymity.

This post has been edited by JohnA:

[karmafist]

Humm, what would you change on a wikifork?

The biggest thing is a clear method of establishing policy, most likely a legislature.

[EuroSceptic]

Humm, what would you change on a wikifork?

The biggest thing is a clear method of establishing policy, most likely a legislature.

Humm, more like a democracy. And that also for content?

[karmafist]

Humm, what would you change on a wikifork?

The biggest thing is a clear method of establishing policy, most likely a legislature.

Humm, more like a democracy. And that also for content?

Nope, just the governance and whenever there's a dispute. Wikipedia had a form of Democracy that would work called Sociocracy, but the Ochlocracy/Aristocracy blend overtook that for all intents and purposes.

[Daniel Brandt]

What would I change on a wikifork?

I'd install a good local search engine so that I can block all bots and scrapers. Then I'd be entitled to bragging rights that if you use my my search and my fork, neither Google nor AOL nor anyone else will be storing all your search terms forever, because we are cool and we don't keep search records, and we keep out those nasty corporations that want to track you forever, and then eventually sell you out to Homeland Security.

And yes, no anonymity for editors.

[JohnA]

What would I change on a wikifork?

I'd install a good local search engine so that I can block all bots and scrapers. Then I'd be entitled to bragging rights that if you use my my search and my fork, neither Google nor AOL nor anyone else will be storing all your search terms forever, because we are cool and we don't keep search records, and we keep out those nasty corporations that want to track you forever, and then eventually sell you out to Homeland Security.

And yes, no anonymity for editors.

Why do that? If you want people to reference your encyclopedia then having Google index it would definitely be a good thing. The bots and scrapers would be stopped through the simple remedy called assertion of copyright. The reason why Wikipedia is so popular is because of the extraordinary reach of the search engines.

You have a problem with Google storing search terms, that's a separate problem unrelated to this issue.

[everyking]

When you reach this level, Karmafist, it's evident you no longer care about the encyclopedia at all--the personal factor has overwhelmed it entirely. I think that's absolutely shameful and disgusting. Everyone knows how cautious an approach I take to blocking people, so let me say that I wholeheartedly endorse your ban and hope they catch any of those socks you've got crawling around, too.

[Ben]

I agree with everyking.

[Somey]

If I'm not mistaken, since posting that sewage-analogy business on the 10th, Mr. Karmafist has had something of a change of heart, agreed to be more "constructive" and so forth on Wikipedia, and has even been unblocked... That isn't to say he's sold out, of course. But maybe he was coming off a bit negatively, even by WR standards, and he decided to give the whole "engagement strategy" thing one more shot.

I often wonder - what would happen to me if I started editing Wikipedia? Probably nothing particularly bad, to be honest, since I'd probably avoid controversial subjects and be a stickler for accuracy and grammatical correctness. (I might even become a "Cite Nazi"... Wouldn't that be fun...)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's constructive activity on Wikipedia, and destructive activity on Wikipedia, but I'm against both kinds. The best advice I can (and generally do) give people is to just avoid like the plague!

Just my $0.02, as they say.

[JohnA]

The first stage in beating addiction is realising you have a problem

[karmafist]

When you reach this level, Karmafist, it's evident you no longer care about the encyclopedia at all--the personal factor has overwhelmed it entirely. I think that's absolutely shameful and disgusting. Everyone knows how cautious an approach I take to blocking people, so let me say that I wholeheartedly endorse your ban and hope they catch any of those socks you've got crawling around, too.

Everyking, if you don't have Stockholm Syndrome, I don't know who does.

Those people have blocked you on a regular basis for what must be going on two years now, and yet you still defend them!

You're just one of many people that have been hurt and demeaned by Wikipedia, I know a few other Stockholm Syndrome cases on Wikipedia, and that's just for starters -- a friend of mine the other day said he was thinking of killing himself because of Wikipedia.

The encyclopedia is irrelevant positively or negatively to me, nobody should ever be hurt, let alone kill themselves, because of a website, and I will do whatever I have to prevent that, "wikipedia's rules" notwithstanding.

[karmafist]

If I'm not mistaken, since posting that sewage-analogy business on the 10th, Mr. Karmafist has had something of a change of heart, agreed to be more "constructive" and so forth on Wikipedia, and has even been unblocked... That isn't to say he's sold out, of course. But maybe he was coming off a bit negatively, even by WR standards, and he decided to give the whole "engagement strategy" thing one more shot.

Actually, no. A friend of mine made me make a promise not to vandalize again, and like many active Wikipedians; he's got great potential clouded by this addiction and he looks up to me -- If I betrayed his trust, I don't know what the consequences of that would be in reality(Wikipedia seems to be the center of his life right now), and I couldn't live with that.

To me, vandalism is nothing compared to letting this friend of mine down.

The first stage in beating addiction is realising you have a problem

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

-Gandhi


I'll beat the addiction after I finish step 4.

[everyking]

When you reach this level, Karmafist, it's evident you no longer care about the encyclopedia at all--the personal factor has overwhelmed it entirely. I think that's absolutely shameful and disgusting. Everyone knows how cautious an approach I take to blocking people, so let me say that I wholeheartedly endorse your ban and hope they catch any of those socks you've got crawling around, too.

Everyking, if you don't have Stockholm Syndrome, I don't know who does.

Those people have blocked you on a regular basis for what must be going on two years now, and yet you still defend them!

You're just one of many people that have been hurt and demeaned by Wikipedia, I know a few other Stockholm Syndrome cases on Wikipedia, and that's just for starters -- a friend of mine the other day said he was thinking of killing himself because of Wikipedia.

The encyclopedia is irrelevant positively or negatively to me, nobody should ever be hurt, let alone kill themselves, because of a website, and I will do whatever I have to prevent that, "wikipedia's rules" notwithstanding.

I don't defend THEM, I defend the integrity of the encyclopedia. In fact I regard it as being ultimately impossible to consistently defend both, because those people are so harmful and parasitic to the encyclopedia--but I also regard it as senseless or unethical to oppose both, which, it seems to me, is what you do by vandalizing the site. Of course people get hurt by editing on Wikipedia, but vandalism accomplishes nothing towards this--in fact it hurts even more people by reducing the quality of the encyclopedia.

[Somey]

I don't mean this as a value judgement, but another way to look at it might be that vandalism gives would-be "cabalists" an easy, and highly visible, means of demonstrating their loyalty to the cause. Fixing "ur so ghey" insertions and page-blankings doesn't require the fixer to know anything, other than how to revert.

So in a way, this ultimately contributes to further insularity and mean-spirited elitism among the admins, especially the newer ones, because they're encouraged to take on an "us vs. them" attitude. Whereas, if there were never any vandalism whatsoever, it would be much more difficult to get noticed -- and thereby promoted.

This is all somewhat theoretical, of course...

[IronDuke]

I agree with Somey. In my view there are two problems with WP: the idiot teenage editors, and the bad admins (these groups overlap). Dealing with the idiot teenage editors will take a big structural change to WP, but one can torture the bad admins more effectively by wikilawyer them to death, subtly altering policy pages, gaming ANI/I, keeping careful records of their unprosecuted misdeeds, and by actualling trying to NPOV their pet articles.

To test this, go find a supported fact (with citations) and try adding it to PETA or Hamas, or virtually any page that SlimVirgin and Jayjg edit (or pick your favorite jackbooted demi-facist admin). If they 3RR, report them, otherwise just make the same edit every 24 hours until they ban the particular sock you're using. Make arguments on the talk page that sound like someone who's been causing trouble lately. Find someone who's been bitching to the admin about being harassed, and poke them a few times.

The admins will quickly escalate into verbal violence, and waste countless hours tracking down everything you've done, and then blame whomever is their favorite puppet-master at the moment. I confess to some pangs of guilt because they are almost always wrong and some bystander gets banned or warned, but it all contributes to making the worst admins miserable, and doesn't affect the good ones much.

This can all be done more-or-less within the WP rules, doesn't hurt what information integrity exists within the "encyclopedic" pages (and anyone who would consider WP encyclopedic on a topic like Hamas should have their head examined), doesn't overly disrupt most well-intentioned editors, but drives the cabal nuts.

[karmafist]

In response to what Everyking said above,


To me, the encyclopedia is a nice bonus, but making sure it does not harm people or is used as a propaganda tool by the wrong hands is a necessity.


I'll do whatever is in my power to stop that while keeping that promise to my friend.

I don't mean this as a value judgement, but another way to look at it might be that vandalism gives would-be "cabalists" an easy, and highly visible, means of demonstrating their loyalty to the cause. Fixing "ur so ghey" insertions and page-blankings doesn't require the fixer to know anything, other than how to revert.

So in a way, this ultimately contributes to further insularity and mean-spirited elitism among the admins, especially the newer ones, because they're encouraged to take on an "us vs. them" attitude. Whereas, if there were never any vandalism whatsoever, it would be much more difficult to get noticed -- and thereby promoted.

This is all somewhat theoretical, of course...

If there are no new ones, what about the old ones?