The Squidward Vandal Options

[ownage]

wow, it's shocking that so many different IPs in so many different countries are used in these seemingly coordinated attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...abuse/Squidward

[blissyu2]

LOL. Good catch!

It makes you wonder how Wikipedians manage to keep a straight face when writing such things.

Of course, apparently all of them are open proxies.

I didn't think that they were all that common or easy to come by. There's like anonymizer.com, anonymouse.com and what 10 or 20 others? Seriously, they can't all be open proxies.

I think more likely its just a running joke and lots of people are doing it for a laugh.

[guanaco]

I helped stop the Squidward vandal attacks, and all the evidence suggests that it was a combination of zombie computers and open proxies.

[jorge]

I helped stop the Squidward vandal attacks, and all the evidence suggests that it was a combination of zombie computers and open proxies.

They haven't stopped LOOK

[blissyu2]

Seems to be terribly difficult to catch.

Go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Squid.jpg

And click "Watch this page"

Wow, tough one there. Since that image is linked every time, then you just have to look at what links here.

Of course, they could just delete the image, but hey, where's the fun in that?

Hell, the only legitimate link to the picture is in a character article.

Seriously, with all of the articles Wikipedia is missing, do they really need such an in depth study in to SpongeBob Squarepants? I mean, I like the show, but come on now. Don't we call such things Spongecruft?

[ownage]

ya, wikipedia has an article for every spongebob episode, so someone on wikipedia is definately into the practice of Spongecruft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spong...ePants_episodes

[Selina]

omg how pathetic

[blissyu2]

Well, I did find it interesting when I was looking up South Park and the Simpsons, 2 shows I like, which it is hard to find such detailed information about them.

However, that kind of thing is really more appropriate to be placed on a fan site or the like.

Its funny though that things like that remain while, well, you see the kind of stuff they delete on AFDs.

[Blu Aardvark]

ya, wikipedia has an article for every spongebob episode, so someone on wikipedia is definately into the practice of Spongecruft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spong...ePants_episodes

That's not too unusual. As long as the cruft is "notable", it gets a good deal of article space. Look at all their detailed articles on Pokemon, for instance. That kinda crap doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

That's part of the reason I think that a series of interconnected wikis, each specializing on a specific topic or point of view, would be far more useful and maintainable. At some point in the near future, I believe that WikiDom will catch on, and Wikipedia will fall by the wayside as a better model comes into play.

[Golbez]

ya, wikipedia has an article for every spongebob episode, so someone on wikipedia is definately into the practice of Spongecruft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Spong...ePants_episodes

That's not too unusual. As long as the cruft is "notable", it gets a good deal of article space. Look at all their detailed articles on Pokemon, for instance. That kinda crap doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

That's part of the reason I think that a series of interconnected wikis, each specializing on a specific topic or point of view, would be far more useful and maintainable. At some point in the near future, I believe that WikiDom will catch on, and Wikipedia will fall by the wayside as a better model comes into play.

I think episode guides, and maybe even pokemon lists, would be excellent candidates for moving over to WikiBooks.

[Lir]

I think episode guides, and maybe even pokemon lists, would be excellent candidates for moving over to WikiBooks.

What is the point of that? Its not like Wikipedia's Pokemon articles get in the way of other articles, its just that, for some inane reason, the people in charge of Wikipedia (such as Raul) are big Pokemon fans, and not as fond of more, academic, subjects.

[blissyu2]

Well, personally, I'm all for cruft articles. I have no problem with them.

However, what I have a problem with is that other articles that are far more notable are being deleted. We had a famous politician deleted a while back, purely because he wrote the article about himself. The argument was that it was a "vanity" article, yet he was actually quite famous and well known. So if its vanity, sure, forbid him from editing it, but still have the article. But more realistically, he of course is an expert on himself. He's biased, yes, but he's still an expert.

Now, I could tolerate that kind of an article being deleted on the basis of non-notoriety if we didn't have all of this cruft stuff. But you know, compare a famous politician who stood in federal parliament for 3 terms, got record votes, and caused major controversy with his platform against the major parties to uh, the philosophy of Squdward, one of Spongebob Squarepants' characters.

The issue isn't so much whether or not the Squidward article should be deleted. Rather, its a matter of priorities.

Students are quite likely to be set tasks to talk about the green movement in Australia, and hence use Wikipedia for that. The likelihood that they would be set an assignment to discuss the philosophy of Squidward is somewhat smaller.

Of course, discussing politicians is boring. Squidward is fun. And I think perhaps that was the motivation behind it. Its because in the end we have volunteers, not paid editors. They are going to want to include things that they find to be fun. How many people find the nitty gritty of federal politics to be interesting? A few, but not many. Its the stuff of assignments, and the kind of thing where Wikipedia could be of real benefit. But try to find someone who really wants to write about such things - other than the guy writing his own article, you'd struggle to find anyone who was interested enough in it to bother. They'd rather spend their time writing Squidward.

And this of course brings us to another broad criticism of Wikipedia - that the community element means that certain more "fun" articles get created, and kept, in preference to more boring, tiresome articles.

Of course, a real encyclopaedia would be full to the brim of boring articles, and have very few fun things.

I like Blu's idea. I think that could work. All of that stuff could be on a Spongebob Squarepants wiki.

[Golbez]

I think episode guides, and maybe even pokemon lists, would be excellent candidates for moving over to WikiBooks.

What is the point of that? Its not like Wikipedia's Pokemon articles get in the way of other articles, its just that, for some inane reason, the people in charge of Wikipedia (such as Raul) are big Pokemon fans, and not as fond of more, academic, subjects.

Which is why I said "maybe even". I'm not a fan of the idea on its face, but I might be able to be convinced. Moving episode lists/guides would benefit all parties, by letting them expand them greatly, insert commentary, etc., and cause more interaction between Wikibooks and Wikipedia.

However, what I have a problem with is that other articles that are far more notable are being deleted. We had a famous politician deleted a while back, purely because he wrote the article about himself. The argument was that it was a "vanity" article, yet he was actually quite famous and well known. So if its vanity, sure, forbid him from editing it, but still have the article. But more realistically, he of course is an expert on himself. He's biased, yes, but he's still an expert.

Technically that would count as original research, unless he's citing other works.

[guy]

Technically that would count as original research, unless he's citing other works.

Is he allowed to cite say his "Who's Who" entry, even if he wrote it himself?

[Golbez]

Technically that would count as original research, unless he's citing other works.

Is he allowed to cite say his "Who's Who" entry, even if he wrote it himself?

I would say no, somewhere along the line it has to be someone other than you, because it's still technically original research and non-verifiable. If it were verifiable by another source, then we would link that and there's no problem. But you saying it about yourself, we have no way of citing that or providing a path to prove it. You could be lying through your teeth so far as we know.

[ownage]

Wikipedia does have an article on every Simpsons epsiode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes


and every Southpark epsiode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodes


now you know why wikipedia can have so many articles.

[Golbez]

Wikipedia does have an article on every Simpsons epsiode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes


and every Southpark epsiode

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodes


now you know why wikipedia can have so many articles.

Those two combined number no more than 1,000.

I think RamBot added many times that number back in 2003. It has so many articles mainly because of RamBot.

[ownage]

that's just 2 TV shows, i wouldn't be surprised if wikipedia has an article for every epsiode of majority of TV show post 1990

article for every episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_...rprise_episodes

articles for majority of episodes of Star Trek: Voyager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_...oyager_episodes

articles for majority of episodes of Star Trek: DS9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_DS9_episodes

article for every episodes of Star Trek: Next Generation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_TNG_episodes

article for every episodes of Original Star Trek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_TOS_episodes

[blissyu2]

Well, um, that particular politician linked mainly to newspaper articles about himself - it had no original research in it at all, and that wasn't the issue. The issue was WP:AUTO. Oh, and because people think its more interesting to read about Squidward than to read about some boring politician.

[Golbez]

that's just 2 TV shows, i wouldn't be surprised if wikipedia has an article for every epsiode of majority of TV show post 1990

article for every episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_...rprise_episodes

articles for majority of episodes of Star Trek: Voyager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_...oyager_episodes

articles for majority of episodes of Star Trek: DS9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_DS9_episodes

article for every episodes of Star Trek: Next Generation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_TNG_episodes

article for every episodes of Original Star Trek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_TOS_episodes

OK, another 500 articles. In the meantime, there are 3000 US county articles, probably at least ten times that number in city/town/village/CDP articles, etc...

Not to mention the 110+ articles I made for the Washington Metro.