Talk:Vandalism on Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Crime (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Consequences of vandalism[edit]

"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.[16] "

Are these dates mixed up or was this joke made after Sarah palin made the comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidit1 (talkcontribs) 08:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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[edit]

It seems that these were the years when vandals were most active. Do statistics support it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.186.3.59 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A message for anyone who might want to get rid of the vandalism template[edit]

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.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographical nature[edit]

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...

Can I get citations for this from anywhere? (Pepper Black (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC))

And articles of current importance. extra999 (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How does it affect Wikipedia?[edit]

This article should state how quickly vandalism is reverted, an estimate of how many articles it affects, and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please change "and/ore" to "and/or." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.116.140 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Irony[edit]

Anyone else find it ironic that this article is semi-protected? (won't be true after April 3, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.179.20 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The vandals apparently do. --SamXS 19:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ISBN[edit]

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)

Image[edit]

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.
Vandalized Wikipedia article.png

--SamX 22:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --SamX 00:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarkeesian[edit]

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".

Typo[edit]

"Locking articles so only established users, or in some cases only administrators, can edit them.[4] Semi-protectedarticles are those that..." There is a missing space after semi-protected.

fixed, thanks for bringing it to our attention. GB fan 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Anita Sarkesian and The Oatmeal[edit]

Two suggestions:

  1. 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.
  2. Add in a section for Douchebag, more specifically, The Oatmeal's encouragement of vandalizing the article to disparage Thomas Edison.

Thanks, 68.1.76.211 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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)
Who's "we"? Are you a mental collective or something? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Cut it out with persecution complexes, I just want dumb shit removed from the article. 68.1.76.211 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is an accurate and sourced description of what actually happened. It will not be removed. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vandalism on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My missing link[edit]

I posted an external link twice and have been reverted twice by user Zzuuzz. I don't have time to get into an edit war (and to be honest, I don't have patience to wade through all the external-link-Wiki-regulations), so I'm just going to post it here and let the chips fall where they may.

Citation needed tag needed[edit]

The line "This is currently unlikely to be the case, considering the reliability and speed of anti-vandal bots and recent changes patrollers" definitely needs a citation needed tag. I came to this article because recently I am constantly finding little bits of surreptitious vandalism and reverting/undoing it, and it's usually not the old-style blatant vandalism, but damages to an article's formatting or sneaking in very small (i.e., a word or two), but very wrong, science. I know this wouldn't be at first assumed to be vandalism, but it's very frequently accompanied with a misleading edit summary (e.g., "fixing typo"). I know "AGF" and all, but the frequency of these problems in science articles seems in my sampling (very unscientific sampling, that is) to be increasing. Hence I really think this line needs a cite, or something to justify it. It almost seems like there's a small army of anons and single-edit users now that have figured out blatant vandalism won't stand and so want to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia with a thousand needles. 142.25.33.107 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Blocking is not considered to be a punitive action on Wikipedia" needs a rephrase to be more objective. I don't know for sure but maybe, "The consensus position of Wikipedia editors is that blocking is not a punitive action." Anyone could "consider" it however they wish; if someone is blocked and they feel it's punitive, then it's considered a punitive action by someone (and I'm sure a lot of people have felt that way). 142.25.33.107 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the statement needs a citation tag, since it doesn't ring true to me, either. I also consider that it may become outdated as "vandalism technology" evolves in the anti-vandalism arms race. As well as the "fiddle vandalism" you note, I've recently seen evidence (from sources outside of Wikipedia) of crowd sourced vandalism (see "dank meme" [1], and "hypothetical" vandalism [2], [3], [4]). Much like "media sourced" vandalism (see Stephen Colbert: here, and here), instead of a concentrated effort by a small cabal of meat-puppets, the vandalism arises through social media among a loose group of people where it becomes a "thing" within their community. Willondon (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah; the more I look into this vandalism, the more complicated I realize it is. Stephen Colbert was one part I knew about long ago, but it just seems to get worse....
70.67.150.101 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I've amended both sentences mentioned by the OP to take account of the concerns expressed here.  —SMALLJIM  17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Add the Jontron dispute![edit]

Jonathan Jafari or Jontron was shown in his 2016 Christmas Special editing the page for The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause to show the plot as "Tim Allen and Martin Short get some serious $$$$$$$$$$$$ for XMAS." Many people followed suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingasopera (talkcontribs) 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This should be called Internet Vandalism[edit]

Anyone can vandalize any Wiki page, even off Wikipedia, including Wikia. So why not rename the title to Internet Vandalism? UpsandDowns1234 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The article would need a fundamental rewrite if it was retitled "Internet vandalism". The article as it is written is specifically about vandalism on Wikipedia. It does not discuss any vandalism outside of Wikipedia. ~ GB fan 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Shouldn't we merge this page with Wikipedia:Vandalism? They're practically both the same! RullRatbwan (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose They're different namespaces, different intended audiences and thus slightly different content. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose, and I'm fairly certain it's prohibited by policy. Any similarity is just a coincidence. This page is an encyclopedia article, the other is a project management page. Murph9000 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I have merged ClueBot NG into this article, following consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groiglery1217 (talkcontribs) 15:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017 on ClueBot NG[edit]

I have found a couple of errors in the newly-created section named "ClueBot NG". After saying the words "Cobi Carter in 2010", there should be a space between the comma and the opening bracket. After that, the word 'Cluebot' should be changed to 'ClueBot', the proper name of the old ClueBot before the NG version took over. At refs 18 and 19, the full stop should be before the two tags not after them.
That's the mistakes I have found. Cheers, 86.169.53.193 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I will never vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmMakers20330 (talkcontribs) 14:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2017[edit]

197.30.223.251 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia - what about full protection?[edit]

This article says that Wikipedia is an open encyclopeadia that anybody can edit and then goes on to say that this is with the exception of articles that are semi-protected. Surely, this exception also applies to articles that are fully protected, i.e. sections of Wikipedia that only administrators are allowed to edit. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)