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

[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)

It looks like Roger has given up and skulked off.

Meanwhile, I've completed five of the ten proposed breaching edits to BLP articles that are unsourced and unwatched, which combined obtain nearly 800 page views per month. None of them have been reverted, much less followed up with any activity whatsoever.

So far, no surprises here.

[Jon Awbrey]

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)

It looks like Roger has given up and skulked off.

Meanwhile, I've completed five of the ten proposed breaching edits to BLP articles that are unsourced and unwatched, which combined obtain nearly 800 page views per month. None of them have been reverted, much less followed up with any activity whatsoever.

So far, no surprises here.

He used a semantic wriggle instead. —Roger Davies 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this demands that someybuddy craft us a Semantic Wriggle Emoticon.

Jon

[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)

It looks like Roger has given up and skulked off.

Meanwhile, I've completed five of the ten proposed breaching edits to BLP articles that are unsourced and unwatched, which combined obtain nearly 800 page views per month. None of them have been reverted, much less followed up with any activity whatsoever.

So far, no surprises here.

He used a semantic wriggle instead. —Roger Davies 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this demands that someybuddy craft us a Semantic Wriggle Emoticon.

Jon

The whole semantic wiggle consisted of McBride suggesting he ask Kohs what he intended to do with the list, since the question demanded confirmation of an assumed plan, which McBride had no way of knowing.

We need an emoticon for "Did you stop beating your wife, yet?" questions.

Objection: Question Assumes Facts Not in Evidence: OQAFNE

[John Limey]

As a matter of fact, I challenge any one out there to provide me with an example of a single full-length Wikipedia article (including or perhaps especially a featured one) without any factual errors or significant omissions.

"Significant omissions" is a hard qualification, since essentially for any complex subject, it's a matter of taste.

However, I'd be interested in what you think of WP's basic coverage of physics and chem topics, like atom, chemical bond, isotope, radioactive decay, and so on. How about the wiki on science itself-- plenty of room to screw up there. Or chemical elements like hydrogen or planets like Jupiter.

Alright, I've had a look at "atom" as its featured and thus presumably quite a good article. Here's what I have so far:

" In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter"." Britannica places the year at about 430 BCE, a figure born out by the article Stocker, Arthur Frederick. "Atomic Theories Ancient and Modern." The Classical Journal. Volume 43, No. 7 (1948). Given that Democritus was born around 460 (this year is widely accepted, and appears in Wikipedia's own article) and given the supreme unlikeliness that Democritus coined the term at the age of 10, this is undoubtedly an error, and one that shouldn't have been too hard to catch. It is admittedly a rather minor error, but an error is an error.

There is also an important omission here, namely the significance of Epicurus who developed the theory of Democritus and Leucippus more fully, systemized it, and popularized it. As you say, determining what counts as a significant omission is a matter of taste, but the several accounts I've looked at all mention Epicurus.

The article also asserts " Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus." Once again, this is wrong, and in more ways than one. In the first place, speaking of a Greek concept of the atom generally is misleading, as there were significant differences among the views of different Greeks (Johnson, Harold. "Three Ancient Meanings of Matter: Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle" Journal of the History of Ideas. Vol. 28, No. 1 (1967)). More importantly, Democritus's concept was not based "purely on philosophy", instead Stocker writes that "it was a closely reasoned deduction from observed phenomena of nature" (Stocker 396). This view is borne out in a variety of other articles including Luthy, Christoph "The Fourfold Democritus on the Stage of Early Modern Science". Isis. Vol. 91, no. 3 (2000). As a matter of fact, Karl Marx even wrote on Greek Atomism and noted that Democritus was engaged in "an empirical search for positive knowledge of the world" (Bailey, Cyril. "Karl Marx on Greek Atomism". The Classical Quarterly. Vol. 22. No. 3/4. (1928)). Once again, we find an error that is small, but it is still an error, and certainly one that would not be made by a historian of science.

Corpusculanarianism is done poorly as well. To Boyle, and most of his contemporaries, corpuscularianism was a way of bringing together Cartesian and Atomist thought on matter and stands in opposition to Aristotelian views (a fact entirely and I would say significantly omitted, which is present in all the relevant literature, and is important to one's understanding). See Hall, Marie Boas. "Boyle's Method of Work: Promoting His Corpuscular Philosophy". Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London. Vol 41, no 2. (1987).

There are also true errors in the paragraph on corpuscularaniasm. It attributes the theory to Geber, but recent scholarship has shown that the manuscript in question (Summa perfectionis) is "ascribed falsely to Jabir ibn Hayyan or Geber, and actually written by an occidental around the thirteenth century" (Newman, William. "The Alchemical Sources of Robert Boyle's Corpuscular Philosophy". Annals of Science. Vol. 53, No. 6. (1996)). It is possible that this is merely an error in Wikipedia's sources which it has reproduced, but I am not certain.

The article also misstates just what early corpusculaniasm asserted, stating its views as "all physical bodies possess an inner and outer layer of minute particles or corpuscles." In fact, the early view spoke only of metals, and is far more complex that what Wikipedia presents. THe statement "In this manner, for example, it was theorized that mercury could penetrate into metals and modify their inner structure" is plain wrong. Summa perfectionis argues that all metals are composed of sulphur and mercury. Mercury particles were believed to be "composed of uniformly tiny particles" allowing it to penetrate small gaps. Because all metals are composed of mercury and sulfur, the addition of more sulfur would change the composition of a metal. (Newman 571-572).

Finally, the statement that corpusculanarianism was "blended with alchemy by Boyle and Isaac Newton" is nonsensical. Corpusculanariasm, as found in Summa perfectionis, was developed by alchemists. Thus, it was inherently blended with alchemy.

So, for those of you keeping score at home. In the first three paragraph subsection of the "Atom" article there are at least 5 errors (mostly ones that are admittedly minor) and several significant omissions. If this demonstration alone is not satisfactory, I would be happy to continue going through the article.

So, for those of you keeping score at home. In the first three paragraph subsection of the "Atom" article there are at least 5 errors (mostly ones that are admittedly minor) and several significant omissions. If this demonstration alone is not satisfactory, I would be happy to continue going through the article.

Please do. I suppose I knew subconsciously that this particular section was crap, overlarded as it has been by generations of editors who seem to want us to believe that their ancestors discovered or postulated "atoms" first.

Okay, move on to the physics and chem! Please!

"However, the hydrogen-1 atom has no neutrons and a positive hydrogen ion has no electrons." If you're going to open the can of worms about the positive hydrogen ion, it seems that it would be appropriate to also mention things like alpha particles, but I'm not sure I would count this a "significant" omission.

"with a negative electrical charge and a size that is too small to be measured using available techniques." Untrue, and misleading. In Demelt, Hans "A Single Atomic Particle Forever Floating at Rest in Free Space: New Value for Electron Radius" (1988), for example, the electron's radius was measured through indirect techniques as less than 10^-20 cm. That was 20 years ago, and is actually mentioned, in a somehwat misleading way, in the Wikipedia article on the electron. There is also an omission here in that the concept of the classical electron radius is not mentioned. The whole issue of electron size, a basic literature review reveals, is a challenging one, and it should either not be mentioned or it should be discussed in enough depth to do the issue justice.


" Neutrons and protons have comparable dimensions—on the order of 2.5 × 10^−15 m—although the 'surface' of these particles is not sharply defined." Is downright meaningless in that is entirely unclear what it is referring to. What is on the order of 2.5*10^-15? It's generally accepted that the diameter of a proton is about 10^-15 (see, e.g., http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/YelenaMeskina.shtml ) but also that protons/neutrons do not have a radius as such (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/YelenaMeskina.shtml). The wording here makes it impossible to know just what is being claimed, but I feel confident in labeling this an error.

"The radius of a nucleus is approximately equal to [1.07*A^1/3] fm, where A is the total number of nucleons." is very wrong. The conventional formula is Rsub0 * A^1/3 (if anyone knows how to make subscripts and superscripts, please tell me), but the constant conventionally used is not 1.07, instead it decreases from around 1.3 for light nuclei to around 1.2 for heavier nuclei ("Improved Z^1/3 Law of Nuclear Charge Radius", see http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0253-6102/51/1/23) . Older studies put the value at 1.2 to 1.5, but have since been dismissed. I've managed to find a few references to a constant of 1.07 but they're quite old. More recent scholarship has also departed from the A^1/3 law (which is a weak estimate at best even after the constant is varied). Lei, Zhang, and Zeng find that the Z^1/3 law is substantially superior to the A^1/3 law. Either way, there is a fairly substantial error here.

"This is much smaller than the radius of the atom, which is on the order of 10^5 fm" Atomic radius varies by element. For smaller atoms, it is on the order of 10^4 fm, for larger ones it is on the order of 10^5 fm. Clearly, this is in error, and it would be easy enough to correct.

Anyway, I haven't the time nor the inclination to make my way through the whole article, but having reviewed the first four paragraphs, there are two clear errors (in the nuclear radius formula and with regard to the radius of the atom) as well as a problematic statement almost certainly in error, but rather ambiguous (with regard to the dimensions of protons and neutrons) and another seriously problematic statement with elements of both error and omission (with regard to the size of an electron). Finally, there's the omission when discussing hydrogen ions, but I'm willing to say that's more of a taste issue. On the whole, I'd say that the science isn't nearly as a bad as the history, but it's still full of flaws.

I think it's rather fascinating that it's now been nearly a week since I pointed out the first of these errors, which I served up more or less on a silver platter with citations and everything, but despite the fact that many devoted Wikipedians are regular readers/contributors here, no one has bothered to correct these numerous errors in a featured article. So much for the argument that Wikipedia is self-correcting (as for the SOFIXIT brigade, the article is semiprotected and even if it weren't, why would I bother?)

[A Horse With No Name]

Pass more inert gas, Roger Davies!

I can say, with no degree of exaggeration, that Roger is among the stupidest people I have ever encountered.

[Lar]

Pass more inert gas, Roger Davies!

I can say, with no degree of exaggeration, that Roger is among the stupidest people I have ever encountered.

You must hang with a pretty smart crowd! (present company excepted, perhaps?)

[thekohser]

I think it's rather fascinating that it's now been nearly a week since I pointed out the first of these errors, which I served up more or less on a silver platter with citations and everything, but despite the fact that many devoted Wikipedians are regular readers/contributors here, no one has bothered to correct these numerous errors in a featured article. So much for the argument that Wikipedia is self-correcting (as for the SOFIXIT brigade, the article is semiprotected and even if it weren't, why would I bother?)

My experiment is also running nicely. I'm up to seven unwatched, unsourced BLP articles modified to include clauses that anyone with a brain would have to stop and take measure of... and not one of them's been touched since I fiddled with them. I'm going to stop after three more BLPs, then we'll see how these 10 test edits fare for the next 3 months.

Roger Davies is welcome to contact me for periodic updates.

[Milton Roe]

I think it's rather fascinating that it's now been nearly a week since I pointed out the first of these errors, which I served up more or less on a silver platter with citations and everything, but despite the fact that many devoted Wikipedians are regular readers/contributors here, no one has bothered to correct these numerous errors in a featured article. So much for the argument that Wikipedia is self-correcting (as for the SOFIXIT brigade, the article is semiprotected and even if it weren't, why would I bother?)

My experiment is also running nicely. I'm up to seven unwatched, unsourced BLP articles modified to include clauses that anyone with a brain would have to stop and take measure of... and not one of them's been touched since I fiddled with them. I'm going to stop after three more BLPs, then we'll see how these 10 test edits fare for the next 3 months.

Roger Davies is welcome to contact me for periodic updates.

WP:POINT, WP:POINT!!! You're using the system to show how broke the system is! This, we ignore you and scream WP:POINT!!!

You disruptive troll. Obviously you're not here to build an encyclopedia.

[carbuncle]

My experiment is also running nicely. I'm up to seven unwatched, unsourced BLP articles modified to include clauses that anyone with a brain would have to stop and take measure of... and not one of them's been touched since I fiddled with them. I'm going to stop after three more BLPs, then we'll see how these 10 test edits fare for the next 3 months.

I can hardly wait for the arguments later over whether or not your insertions should have been obvious to anyone with a brain...

[Kelly Martin]

WP:POINT, WP:POINT!!! You're using the system to show how broke the system is! This, we ignore you and scream WP:POINT!!!

WP:POINT is certainly on the shortlist of Wikipedia's stupidest policies, although it's hard to say it's the stupidest, simply because the competition is so fierce. It is also one of the strongest bits of evidence for Wikipedia's status as a cult.

[thekohser]

My experiment is also running nicely. I'm up to seven unwatched, unsourced BLP articles modified to include clauses that anyone with a brain would have to stop and take measure of... and not one of them's been touched since I fiddled with them. I'm going to stop after three more BLPs, then we'll see how these 10 test edits fare for the next 3 months.

I can hardly wait for the arguments later over whether or not your insertions should have been obvious to anyone with a brain...

One of the seven, about a football player, is a bit weak edit. It's all factual info about that player, but written in such a clumsy way in broken English, I would hope a grammarian (even if not a lover of sport) would wish to SOFIXIT if they saw it.

Clearly, most of the edits would cause the BLP subject themselves to ask, "Huh?" So, that's sort of a part of the test, too. Will a BLP subject personally get involved in fixing these unwatchlisted articles?

Another part of the test will be to determine how many scraper sites pick these up and perpetuate the edits, and for how long.

There's a lot of good data that will come out of this. Most of it will be suppressed by the Wikipediots, I'm sure.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 13th January 2010, 5:32pm

[Somey]

There's a lot of good data that will come out of this. Most of it will be suppressed by the Wikipediots, I'm sure.

Well, you shouldn't have referred to it as a "breaching experiment" - something like "Quality Assurance Program Evaluation" might have been better, though of course they'd probably prefer something like "Futile Test of Rock-Solid Anti-Vandal Security Functionality."

Still, we already know WP'ers are still, in 2010, more likely than not to let a "harmless" marginal-BLP edit pass, if it's something along the lines of "Smithies owns two cats, Boris and Natasha, who both weigh over 24 lbs. and have been used as characters in his short stories." Aren't they? It depends on who's watching on any given article, but since we still see it, I'd have to assume it's still pretty much how they operate.

And as always, I should point out that The Wikipedia Review™ does not officially support nor condone the insertion of false or misleading material into Wikipedia articles, even for the purpose of quality evaluation. (As if that makes any difference! )

[thekohser]

And as always, I should point out that The Wikipedia Review™ does not officially support nor condone the insertion of false or misleading material into Wikipedia articles, even for the purpose of quality evaluation. (As if that makes any difference! )

Yes, I realize I have the Review's tacit support.

[A Horse With No Name]

I can say, with no degree of exaggeration, that Roger is among the stupidest people I have ever encountered.

You must hang with a pretty smart crowd! (present company excepted, perhaps?)

Don't knock yourself, kiddo. It takes some degree of skill to make little choo-choo trains out of Lego pieces.

WP:POINT, WP:POINT!!! You're using the system to show how broke the system is! This, we ignore you and scream WP:POINT!!!

It ain't polite to point.

Take Wife selling, for instance.

Nah. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

[Milton Roe]

And as always, I should point out that The Wikipedia Review™ does not officially support nor condone the insertion of false or misleading material into Wikipedia articles, even for the purpose of quality evaluation. (As if that makes any difference! )

Yes, I realize I have the Review's tacit support.

Absense of protest implies consent! Badsite! Badsite!

[Jon Awbrey]

Nah. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Why buy the horse when you can get the horseshit for free?

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Nah. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Why buy the horse when you can get the horseshit for free?

Jon

Now don't offend Horsey, or he'll be off to, um, greener pastures.

[Lar]

Now don't offend Horsey, or he'll be off to, um, greener pastures.

One can hope! But I don't think there are any.

[Milton Roe]

Now don't offend Horsey, or he'll be off to, um, greener pastures.

One can hope! But I don't think there are any.

Wait till Horsey gets through with them. Horseshit is excellent fertilizer!

[radek]

I haven't heard form Mr. McBride since we noted that his stats show that AT LEAST 56,000 BLPs must be completely unwatched, and surely more.

I'm right here, dear. I decided to make a log of the number of unwatched biographies. It should update every 30 minutes.

How many biographies are tagged with BLP unsourced? I quit counting after 25,000. How many are both unwatched and not sourced?

For what it's worth I did take a, uh, random sample, via the 100% scientific method of "scroll and click w/o looking at the titles" of 15 (I know I should've gone with at least 30 for the LOL#s to kick in but I got lazy) from the first 500 of BLP:unsourced and found that:

A: 4 actually did have 1 or 2 references. In one case it was just bad formatting with the ref included in the text
B: 5 had "external links" that after a very thorough and scientific yet extremely brief inspection looked as if they could be considered refs
C: 1 had 3 refs in a "Reference" section all of which looked legit
D: 1 that was in both A and B
E: 2 had nothing (one was on a Iraqi politician)
F: 2 were somewhere between B and E - to go either way I would've had to spent more time on it than I felt like. 1 of these had the women's MySpace page + what looked like a "official" small local gov page

So good news is that at least some of this is probably just mis-tagging. The bad news is that mis-tagging still sucks, though not as bad. The worse news is that it would still leave about 4/15 of that 25,000+ as unsourced or sourced with crap which is still a lot.

(of course BLPs have higher standards for refs so that might shave off another one or two from the 11)