Fred,
You seem to think that I'm "proposing giving power to a set
of troublemakers." But this is not what I propose. Rather,
I propose using statistics to /identify/ troublemakers.
Granted that a simplistic formula would immediately backfire.
You and Theresa have correctly pointed out that raw percentage
(of times a contributor's edits is reverted) may indicate only
that he (or she) tries nobly to settle edit wars -- rather
than that they are stirring up trouble.
You would be far off base if you thought I proposed automatic
sanctions on users who got reverted a lot. Rather, I am
proposing that we track reversions and seek to discover
whether the statistics will tell us anything useful.
Key points:
* You can observe a lot by watching.
* The truth will set you free.
* Don't shoot the messenger.
Ed Poor
Theresa wrote:
> I agree, what to stop someone from following you
> around anh reverting everything you do?
The formula I propose, takes that into account.
We should track the number of a contributors edits that are reverted,
divided into:
* reverted by admins
* reverted by ordinary folk
* reverted by suspected troublemakers
Additionally, we should track reversions MADE BY EACH USER. So anyone
who makes trouble by following around a "good" user and reverts all
their edits would be quickly tagged as a "reverts for no good reason"
user.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Fred wrote:
> So you give @#$%*%s a way to screw up your status on Wikpedia, shame
on you!
Fred gets -1 point for bad language and -1 point for shaming. Please
refrain from editing Wikipedia or posting to the mailing list for 2
days. :-)
Half kidding,
Uncle Ed
I agree, what to stop someone from following you around an reverting
everything you do ?
Theresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@ctelco.net]
Sent: 03 February 2004 14:51
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] I propose a formula based on reverts
So you give assholes a way to screw up your status on Wikpedia, shame on
you!
> From: Anthere <anthere8(a)yahoo.com>
>
> If only we could get rid of all the permanent and distracting bickering
> as well !
You can talk, you can talk,
You can bicker, you can talk,
You can bicker, bicker, bicker,
You can talk, you can talk,
You can talk, talk, talk, talk,
Bicker, bicker, bicker
You can talk all you wanna
But it's different than it was!
--Meredith Willson, "Rock Island," _The Music Man_
(Sorry, it just slipped out...)
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
To be honest I only have a fleeting idea of what a troll is. It does have a
number of definitions, even the very loose "he who is surrounded by
conflict" which apparently I fit. However, the strict definition (as I see
it) of someone who makes trouble for troubles sake, and is inclined to
subversion and chaos, fails to fit me at all. Some seem to think I am a
test, or that I am testing you. This is not entirely far from the truth. I
am currently trying to find out if this is a place worth being. So far there
is not a consensus on this subject. It still appears to be a matter of
debate. However, with admins like those who seek my removal, I think there
is a great deal of cause for concern about the future of the wikipedia. I
agree with the spirit of the following:
>Just out of curiosity, is there some reason why the entry bar for Wikipedia
>contributors is so low? Right now the system lets anyone post unless
>someone blocks their IP number or user name. While this has certain virtues
>in terms of inclusiveness, it also makes vandalism more likely. Moreover,
>blocking an IP numbers has the effect of blocking an entire class of people
>for the infractions of a single individual, and it isn't even effective at
>blocking people who use an anonymizer to continually change their IP
>number.
>It seems to me that it would better to require people to register before
>they can contribute. That's a fairly minor requirement, but it would
>probably be enough even without a verification system to deter some of the
>casual vandals and trolls, and it would also ensure that bans only affect
>people who have actually done something wrong to merit the ban.
>I imagine this discussion has already happened before, but I haven't seen
>it, and I'd be curious to know what the reasoning is behind the current
>system.
There is a sad cultural phenomena here not entirely removed from the days of
the salem witch hunts. If one is accused of "trolling" they are guilty until
proven innocent. And yet there is no current way to be proven innocent (I
have looked into it). I wish we could all be real editors, and focus on the
task of making a quality encyclopedia, rather than a mob of ghosts gossiping
around the water cooler. :(
Jack Lynch
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
> > One idea I have is a ban for one day for each time
> the perp uses the
> > words "stupid", "trash" and "crap" to describe
> another's edit. This
> > could add up to a year or two for some of these
> folks.
>
> I like the idea of short "time-out" bans. I
> suggested this a couple of
> years ago. Also, it seemed to work fairly well the
> time Erik M.
> (Eloquence) "banned" RK for just under 24 hours last
> year.
>
> My experience is that time-outs work better than
> total bans. A ban is
> like death or torture: it satisfies one party's
> desire for revenge, but
> at a terrible cost (hint: think of how the other
> party feels, waking up
> dead or maimed...)
>
> Kindly Ol' Uncle Ed
IIRC, the general concensus after that was that people
*shouldn't* do unilateral bans in the future and that
Erik should have consulted the list.
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Erik Moeller wrote:
>Wikipedia is not about "rights". Wikipedia is about creating an
>encyclopedia. All this trolling distracts from that goal. Trolls should be
>banned quickly and painlessly as soon as an opportunity presents itself to
>get rid of them.
Just out of curiosity, is there some reason why the entry bar for
Wikipedia contributors is so low? Right now the system lets anyone
post unless someone blocks their IP number or user name. While this
has certain virtues in terms of inclusiveness, it also makes
vandalism more likely. Moreover, blocking an IP numbers has the
effect of blocking an entire class of people for the infractions of a
single individual, and it isn't even effective at blocking people who
use an anonymizer to continually change their IP number.
It seems to me that it would better to require people to register
before they can contribute. That's a fairly minor requirement, but it
would probably be enough even without a verification system to deter
some of the casual vandals and trolls, and it would also ensure that
bans only affect people who have actually done something wrong to
merit the ban.
I imagine this discussion has already happened before, but I haven't
seen it, and I'd be curious to know what the reasoning is behind the
current system.
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------
So what do I do? Say, "Jack, I think you're a troll and I want you to
leave. Would you like Mediation, or shall we take this straight to
Arbitration?"
Or should I just ask Erik to step on him, as Treebeard the Ent did to
the orc in LOTR?
Impatiently,
Ed Poor