Effective Vandalism -- Experimentation Results Options

[Somey]

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

You mean, what would the existing admins do if vandalism simply disappeared? I guess that would depend on what they come up with to replace it.

If they didn't replace it, my guess would be that the admins who were promoted primarily for being "vandal-fighters" would sooner or later begin to feel they were superfluous and in over their heads. Many of them would get frustrated or bored, and probably move on to better things, such as painting, book-reading, or learning a musical instrument, assuming they had the patience for stuff like that.

As for the rest, some would become "cite nazis," some would just spend endless hours arguing about policy, some would comb the site looking for copyright violations... and the few who are capable of good proofreading would hopefully spend time doing that. IMO there's no question that the site would improve as a body of reference in the near term, but without an easily-recognizable enemy, people would just get bored with it. It would eventually take all the fun out of being a Wikipedian, because the gamesmanship that's inherent in the system now would go from being "us vs. them" to "us vs. us," which is far less enjoyable.

Again, aside from probably being a moot point, this is all theoretical, and anyone at Wikipedia who's reading this would think I'm nuts (assuming they don't already) for even suggesting the possibility. But that's how the human mind works - if you make it interesting, everyone will want a piece of the action. And if you make it boring, the opposite happens.

Call me wacky!

[karmafist]

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

You mean, what would the existing admins do if vandalism simply disappeared? I guess that would depend on what they come up with to replace it.

If they didn't replace it, my guess would be that the admins who were promoted primarily for being "vandal-fighters" would sooner or later begin to feel they were superfluous and in over their heads. Many of them would get frustrated or bored, and probably move on to better things, such as painting, book-reading, or learning a musical instrument, assuming they had the patience for stuff like that.

As for the rest, some would become "cite nazis," some would just spend endless hours arguing about policy, some would comb the site looking for copyright violations... and the few who are capable of good proofreading would hopefully spend time doing that. IMO there's no question that the site would improve as a body of reference in the near term, but without an easily-recognizable enemy, people would just get bored with it. It would eventually take all the fun out of being a Wikipedian, because the gamesmanship that's inherent in the system now would go from being "us vs. them" to "us vs. us," which is far less enjoyable.

Again, aside from probably being a moot point, this is all theoretical, and anyone at Wikipedia who's reading this would think I'm nuts (assuming they don't already) for even suggesting the possibility. But that's how the human mind works - if you make it interesting, everyone will want a piece of the action. And if you make it boring, the opposite happens.

Call me wacky!

Nah, you're not wacky, bud. I just disagree with the "us versus us" assessment, humans unfortunately always generally seem to find a "them" to find, whether it's other humans or nature or even parts of themselves.

Good idea though on the boring part. I'm glad that my friend stepped in, vandalism would seem to be nowhere near as effective as keeping your head down, being fairly bland, and looking like dozens of people.

[Somey]

I'm glad that my friend stepped in, vandalism would seem to be nowhere near as effective as keeping your head down, being fairly bland, and looking like dozens of people.

I'm glad too, but speaking strictly on my own behalf, another Siegenthaler-like episode would be very helpful -- at least in giving the media another example to cite in stories. That doesn't necessarily mean we should manufacture one, though... I suspect they (i.e., the media) were trying to puff something like that up with the Ken Lay situation, but there wasn't enough substance there, and Lay's family obviously didn't make a big deal over it.

That recent silliness with the Lake Michigan ferries may be the "best" we can expect now - they're just being too vigilant with the biographical articles, which is to their credit, as much as I hate to admit it! We could just sit around and wait for the next "spectacular failure," but there are enough patrollers there now (who know just what to look for) that it might be a rather long wait.

So it's an interesting problem, as I often like to say... I've always advocated concentrating on the systemic flaws and maybe the actions of the dozen or so "worst" admins anyway, but if there is another case of a libelous/untrue statement against a living person making it into main article space for a significant period of time, no reason why the media (and us, of course) shouldn't capitalize on it. They'd certainly do the same with us, I'd expect.

[LamontStormstar]

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

-Gandhi

I remember that quote from a Taurin Fox artwork.


Anyway, so Karmafist whatever happened with you on Wikipedia? They banned you forever for the whole spreading your manifesto and that's that?

[Mr.Treason II]

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.

I give you my full support in dealing with Wikipedia. They block genuinely useful editors like Ecoleetage. NaturalNews has a alternative that will nurture in the hands of people like you.

[melloden]

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.

I give you my full support in dealing with Wikipedia. They block genuinely useful editors like Ecoleetage. NaturalNews has a alternative that will nurture in the hands of people like you.

Is there a reason why we're restarting a thread from 2006?

[carbuncle]

I give you my full support in dealing with Wikipedia. They block genuinely useful editors like Ecoleetage. NaturalNews has a alternative that will nurture in the hands of people like you.

Yes, NaturalNews sounds great. If you're a fan of David Icke.

Can one of the mods please tell Mr. T II to quit resurrecting old threads?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

T... for II... and II... for T...

No, we can't tell him that. All we can do is close threads if it seems really inappropriate to have them open. I wouldn't sweat it right now.

[Alison]

T... for II... and II... for T...

No, we can't tell him that. All we can do is close threads if it seems really inappropriate to have them open. I wouldn't sweat it right now.

Every time I keep thinking it's 'The Joy' who's restarting the thread and I boggle a bit, then realize it's just the same avatar

[The Joy]

T... for II... and II... for T...

No, we can't tell him that. All we can do is close threads if it seems really inappropriate to have them open. I wouldn't sweat it right now.

Every time I keep thinking it's 'The Joy' who's restarting the thread and I boggle a bit, the realize it's just the same avatar

Oh, that's what everyone is talking about. I have avatars turned off so I don't see everyone's avatar.

You're a thief, Mr. TT.

[EricBarbour]

[Milton Roe]

Stop posting to 5 year-old threads, you crazy bastard.

[Mr.Treason II]

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.

There is a NaturalPedia made by Natural News. You can get a honest encyclopedia from them (as long as the FDA don't get into it.)

[victim of censorship]

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.

Wikipedia is a cesspool of sewerage the size of lake Michigan, with a black cloud of flies hovering over it.

[EricBarbour]

I was just gonna say.......

If a lad was serious about vandalizing Wikipedia, there's a possibility that I'd run into today.

Found an IP address that was going in and vandalizing sports statistics. Just one or two per day,
very quietly, and claiming they were "corrections". I checked a few of the British football stats
against a copy of the Sky Sports Yearbook that my neighbor happens to own (he's an expatriate
Brit and a big "soccer" fan).
And sure enough, the Wikipedia articles had some carefully-placed errors. Uncaught.

Now mind you, one of the major unspoken reasons why Wikipedia enjoys such popularity is because of
its massive database of sports trivia. About 40% of the whole database, estimated. Males both young
and old enjoy having an easy online reference for stats, especially since yearbooks are costly and
there are no other comprehensive stat websites that are freely available.
There are things like baseball-reference.com and soccerstats.com, but they have limitations,
or charge money for full access.

As a result, Wikipedia gets a lot of love from the sports-fan public.

Imagine the rage, if sports fans found out there were people deliberately introducing errors----
into all those millions of numerical stats on WP. Random errors that are VERY difficult to catch.
Especially since, no doubt, a lot of cash bets are settled with Wikipedia sports data every day.

Just think of it.

[thekohser]

Imagine the rage, if sports fans found out there were people deliberately introducing errors----
into all those millions of numerical stats on WP. Random errors that are VERY difficult to catch.
Especially since, no doubt, a lot of cash bets are settled with Wikipedia sports data every day.

Just think of it.

Just think if the errors have been inserted by an intern working on orders from Sky Sports Yearbook!

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Especially since, no doubt, a lot of cash bets are settled with Wikipedia sports data every day.

Just think of it.

A lot of gullible people may rely upon Wikipedia for information, but I have trouble imagining that sports bettors would be so careless.

[Zoloft]

Especially since, no doubt, a lot of cash bets are settled with Wikipedia sports data every day.

Just think of it.

A lot of gullible people may rely upon Wikipedia for information, but I have trouble imagining that sports bettors would be so careless.

I believe he meant 'people making bets with drunken friends at bars.'

[lilburne]

Now mind you, one of the major unspoken reasons why Wikipedia enjoys such popularity is because of
its massive database of sports trivia. About 40% of the whole database, estimated. Males both young
and old enjoy having an easy online reference for stats, especially since yearbooks are costly and
there are no other comprehensive stat websites that are freely available.
There are things like baseball-reference.com and soccerstats.com, but they have limitations,
or charge money for full access.

Lists of stats are dead enough that even WP editors will be hard pressed to drain any more life from them. So only accuracy is important in those articles.

And there I think we have it. The articles on main subjects, even the biographies are unreadable. I don't suppose I'm alone in that opinion. Even if the article is 100% accurate, the style is so dreary and tedious, that after a paragraph or two one wants to be reading something else. Have they ever done an analysis as to the average time a non-editor spend on a page? I suspect that its a matter of seconds. or IOW the articles are NOT informing anyone about anything.

The challenge to wikipeda will come from dedicated subject websites that are informative and provide a coherent narrative. Chaining quotes from multiple sources without copyright violations, or plagiarism doesn't cut it.