Vandalism is usually caught in a few seconds, or not Options Rating

[thekohser]

Here's one about 7 months old:

She is also as the last name suggests the mother of Peter Matt. He is widely known as one of the biggest users in Australia.

Here's one about 2.5 years old:

Ioannis "Noucleous" Makris is a widelly known, controversial figure of the Greek society. He is a Doctor with a Phd in Genetics from King's College in London and subsequently a famous club owner in Athens, Greece. He is usually reffered to as "Noucleous" due to his extensive and concise knowledge in several fields. He has been a participant in several Greek TV shows and currently holds the Chair of the Committee of the "Knowledge Games and Answers" based in Vouliagmeni, Greece.

Here's one about 3.5 years old:

He is the founder and front man for the Jeremy Vogt Band. Vogt is also widely known in the Indianapolis music scene for being an ardent supporter of original music. Vogt's debut album, People in Strange Places, (2005) has received critical acclaim in Indianapolis and throughout central Indiana.

(As if central Indiana has a music scene!)


That's all I have for you today, loyal Wikipedians. Get to work! I'd help you, but I'm banned!

[tarantino]

These 3 steps do the trick.

1. Special:Random
2. Read article
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

[carbuncle]

These 3 steps do the trick.

1. Special:Random
2. Read article
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

I think in this case the steps probably go like this:

1. Find that some misguided individual is calling your website communist
2. Look up said individual's name in WP
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

[thekohser]

These 3 steps do the trick.

1. Special:Random
2. Read article
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

I think in this case the steps probably go like this:

1. Find that some misguided individual is calling your website communist
2. Look up said individual's name in WP
3. Check implausible claims using a reliable source.

Carbuncle's paying attention. Five gold stars to him.

Speaking of doppelgangers, yesterday was not a good day to affirm that my family's surname at one time used to be "Koos".

How do you come across errors like this?

But seriously... someone who is not drunk on the JimboJuice, with a college education, and a critical eye, should be able to find at least one glaring problem in every non-Featured Wikipedia article. Every one. Without needing to consult any outside reference except one, perhaps two, queries of Google.

[Sarcasticidealist]

But seriously... someone who is not drunk on the JimboJuice, with a college education, and a critical eye, should be able to find at least one glaring problem in every non-Featured Wikipedia article. Every one. Without needing to consult any outside reference except one, perhaps two, queries of Google.

What do you mean by "glaring problem"? If you're limiting it to factual errors, I'll take that challenge (for one thing, there are thousands of perfectly accurate one sentence stubs). If you're including things like poor quality writing, you're probably closer to right (though again, there's those stubs).

[thekohser]

But seriously... someone who is not drunk on the JimboJuice, with a college education, and a critical eye, should be able to find at least one glaring problem in every non-Featured Wikipedia article. Every one. Without needing to consult any outside reference except one, perhaps two, queries of Google.

What do you mean by "glaring problem"? If you're limiting it to factual errors, I'll take that challenge (for one thing, there are thousands of perfectly accurate one sentence stubs). If you're including things like poor quality writing, you're probably closer to right (though again, there's those stubs).

I thought "stubs" are not "articles"? They're not in my sample.



I might have been a bit hyperbolic, Steve. After all, we know the article about National Fuel Gas is close to perfect, at least the last time I wrote it.

8,062 non-redirects in the article namespace use "Template:BLP unsourced" and are completely unwatched (0 watchers).

Mr. McBride, you know... this really and truly calls for a breaching experiment. Please, I beg of you, provide me privately with a random selection of just 10 of these 8,062 time bombs.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Fri 8th January 2010, 5:16am

[MZMcBride]

Mr. McBride, you know... this really and truly calls for a breaching experiment. Please, I beg of you, provide me privately with a random selection of just 10 of these 8,062 time bombs.

I just sent Mr. Kohs this list privately. I'm inclined to also post a list here. This site seems to be the easiest way to get biographies looked at and checked....

Feel free to post your results publicly, Mr. Kohs.

[thekohser]

Mr. McBride, you know... this really and truly calls for a breaching experiment. Please, I beg of you, provide me privately with a random selection of just 10 of these 8,062 time bombs.

I just sent Mr. Kohs this list privately. I'm inclined to also post a list here. This site seems to be the easiest way to get biographies looked at and checked....

Feel free to post your results publicly, Mr. Kohs.

My actions will take place over the next 4 or 5 days.

My results will be announced at the end of March 2010.

McBride has some concerns about the potentially "nefarious" aspects of what I intend to do, but it is my hope that Wikipedia's problems can be fully exposed, even to the point of silliness, without unduly harming the reputation or well-being of any of these BLP subjects.

It is possible that one more editor will be brought in on the experiment. I am certain that come March 2010, my account(s) will be blocked for having done this breaching exercise, so it may be necessary over these next few days for me to ask for certain "far-flung" IP address holders to create (or awaken) some throw-away accounts, and actually inject the necessary edits on my behalf, as a proxy.

I'm certain this experiment will bear rich fruit and laughter one day.

By the way, my rough overview of these articles is that the vast majority of them are viewed only about 25 to 70 times per month. However, I did find one for a European entertainer who gets about 450 to 550 page views per month -- but still unsourced, still not watchlisted.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Fri 8th January 2010, 6:54am

[tarantino]

Mr. McBride, you know... this really and truly calls for a breaching experiment. Please, I beg of you, provide me privately with a random selection of just 10 of these 8,062 time bombs.

I just sent Mr. Kohs this list privately. I'm inclined to also post a list here. This site seems to be the easiest way to get biographies looked at and checked....

Feel free to post your results publicly, Mr. Kohs.

My actions will take place over the next 4 or 5 days.

The arbitration committee is in a tizzy over this.

Is it true that you have just given a banned editor, Thekohser, a list of BLPs to vandalize? (Link)

Roger Davies talk 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

[Kelly Martin]

The arbitration committee is in a tizzy over this.

Is it true that you have just given a banned editor, Thekohser, a list of BLPs to vandalize? (Link)

Roger Davies talk 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger's quite the little stormtrooper, isn't he?

MZ, I'd say your days in wikiland are numbered.

[thekohser]

The arbitration committee is in a tizzy over this.

Is it true that you have just given a banned editor, Thekohser, a list of BLPs to vandalize? (Link)

Roger Davies talk 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger's quite the little stormtrooper, isn't he?

MZ, I'd say your days in wikiland are numbered.

It's quite laughable.

The experiment will be completed by the second week of April, and the affected Wikipedia pages (merely 10 of them) will be entirely restored to their status as of approximately January 4, 2010.

It is amazing to me how fervent is the Cabalrb/Com desire to not allow Wikipedia to be exposed for the mess that it is. Besides, with the experiment already underway, what if it shows that for 90% of the cases, Wikipedia quickly repairs itself? I suppose that news would be trumpeted from the highest Signpost and McBride hailed a hero for having organized the demonstration of the powers of Wikipedia.

How's this for a suggestion -- just leave me and McBride alone, and trust in our ethics that we are not the types of people to unduly harm the reputations of innocent people, unlike some senior Wikipedians I know?

[Milton Roe]

The arbitration committee is in a tizzy over this.

Is it true that you have just given a banned editor, Thekohser, a list of BLPs to vandalize? (Link)

Roger Davies talk 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger's quite the little stormtrooper, isn't he?

MZ, I'd say your days in wikiland are numbered.

It's quite laughable.

The experiment will be completed by the second week of April, and the affected Wikipedia pages (merely 10 of them) will be entirely restored to their status as of approximately January 4, 2010.

It is amazing to me how fervent is the Cabalrb/Com desire to not allow Wikipedia to be exposed for the mess that it is. Besides, with the experiment already underway, what if it shows that for 90% of the cases, Wikipedia quickly repairs itself? I suppose that news would be trumpeted from the highest Signpost and McBride hailed a hero for having organized the demonstration of the powers of Wikipedia.

How's this for a suggestion -- just leave me and McBride alone, and trust in our ethics that we are not the types of people to unduly harm the reputations of innocent people, unlike some senior Wikipedians I know?

This is hilarious. It's rather like some journalist discovering that 14% of US nuclear warheads are totally unguarded. When he sends the gov a list and a note, they respond by calling him a traitor, and waffling on about abetting terrorism.

But not by doing anything about it, since all proposals for THAT, are stuck in committee. Besides, the fucked-up Executive Branch has a long-standing policy that ANYBODY CAN GUARD. Which would be weakened if it weren't applied everywhere, including to nukes. Don't you know.

Anyway, so let's find a way to blame Kohs and McBride for the stupidity and lassitude of Wikipedia.

And yeah, "inert" is the word. "Inert gas" might mean one thing to a chemist, but it's also an excellent term for what is emitted by Wikipedia administrators when their beliefs are challenged.

Pass more inert gas, Roger Davies! You gave us the helium squeal, now we want the xenon anaethesia!

[taiwopanfob]

This is hilarious. It's rather like some journalist discovering that 14% of US nuclear warheads are totally unguarded. When he sends the gov a list and a note, they respond by calling him a traitor, and waffling on about abetting terrorism.

Could be worse:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/7/why_i...wer_who_exposed

Anyway, so let's find a way to blame Kohs and McBride for the stupidity and lassitude of Wikipedia.

Lazy asses: they should be conducting this research, not Kohs. Yet more evidence Davies, and the other JimboJuiceHeads, don't give a shit about the BLP victims. Shit, even according to their supreme leader, whatever Kohs and accomplices do will ultimately be on Kohs head -- a fact that Kohs is undoubtedly aware.

No, these fuckers are only afraid of proof the project is founded (in part) on a falsehood -- if not an outright lie.

[Kelly Martin]

Lazy asses: they should be conducting this research, not Kohs. Yet more evidence Davies, and the other JimboJuiceHeads, don't give a shit about the BLP victims. Shit, even according to their supreme leader, whatever Kohs and accomplices do will ultimately be on Kohs head -- a fact that Kohs is undoubtedly aware.

The response to the NEWT project amply demonstrated that Wikipedia has absolutely no interest in any sort of meaningful quality assurance processes. Nobody likes QA (the role of QA, after all, is to go "YOU FUCKED UP" to people who have, in fact, fucked up), but at least most people have enough of a professional attitude about their work to understand that it matters that you do the job right. Wikipedia takes the cult of the amateur so far as to actively squash any attempt to behave professionally amongst its volunteers.