Talk:Vandalism on Wikipedia
|WikiProject Wikipedia||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Crime||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
"On the June 6, 2011 episode of "The Colbert Report", comedian Stephen Colbert suggested that all of his viewers vandalize the Wikipedia page for bell (instrument) and add the fragment "Used by Paul Revere to warn the British that hey, you're not going to succeed in taking our guns. USA!! USA!!". This was humorously treated as factual in a response by Sarah Palin on June 2, 2011 about what she took away from her visit to Boston. "
- I'm pretty sure it was a reference to the Sarah Palin comment, but I don't remember for sure. wintermute (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
2006 and 2007
A message for anyone who might want to get rid of the vandalism template
I realize that since this is an article in namespace zero, and it does concern Wikipedia itself, and is able to exist with out being a wp:cross-namespace redirect, it's gone pretty far down the line that most articles about Wikipedia haven't. I'm guessing that any simple reader reading this article who is not an editor will come along and read this article (although the odds are slim) and be able to know perfectly well what "vandalism" means in the Wikipedia department. I mean, take a look at vandalism. You see a tag to WP:VANDALISM but you don't see one yo this article. And don't get me wrong: I wouldn't point out that this article should be deleted because it is a sort of "clone" of WP:VANDALISM, because I believe that it is important to tell the difference between an article and a policy or guideline.
Vandalism in Wikipedia is a function of the region. You can see lot of vandalism in developing-country-related-articles, whereas less in other nation related articles...
How does it affect Wikipedia?
- The vandals apparently do. -- 19:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
ISBN 10:0-596-51616-2 is incorrect, please remove "10:" from it as it means ISBN-10.
- Done. There was also a typo in the ISBN (changed to 51516). --ElHef (Meep?) 18:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the article uses an image (File:Wikipedia vandalism.svg) of a page being edited. This is not what is relevant to most readers (I presume most readers to not edit the wiki), so I wonder if it would be better to use an image of an article that has been vandalized (i.e., not an image of a diff). There are ways this could be done innocuously--take a screenshot of a preview, take a screenshot of the permalink of that same diff, do it on an article copy in userspace. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a screenshot of the same edit with the vandalized text highlighted, if anyone else agrees. It might need to be cropped, so that the vandalized text is more noticeable.
--22:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done -- 00:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, if it's really necessary to keep the exact number of people who vandalized her page, let's at least try to remove needless speculation about the vandalizing of her page being somehow misogynistic (or, for that matter, a "campaign"), shall we? Haltendehand (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry if you don't see hateful, misogynist trolling as a big deal, but the reliable sources used in this section say otherwise. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Source 21 (which is the only "reliable source" used for any of the content I edited) is a blog (a.k.a. not a particularly reliable source), which contains such POV gems as, among others: "Even if you don't like the idea - or don't believe that women are poorly represented in games (in which case, you would be wrong)". Instead, I suggest we take an actual reliable source (such as this Wired article, and delete the POV stuff about the vandalism being a "campaign" and "misogynist".
"Locking articles so only established users, or in some cases only administrators, can edit them. Semi-protectedarticles are those that..." There is a missing space after semi-protected.
Anita Sarkesian and The Oatmeal
- Remove or rework the section on Anita Sarkesian. It's written like an advertisement for her purpose and her blog and seems to insult the vandals by calling them misogynists, implying that the issue was sexism and not that Anita's project had faults which Wikipedia ended up being used as a conduit for expression.
- Add in a section for Douchebag, more specifically, The Oatmeal's encouragement of vandalizing the article to disparage Thomas Edison.
- Regarding #1...In other words, she was "asking for it" ? No, I think we'll pass on your decidedly misogynist spin on the affair. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)