I think this problem has been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk
page, and the evidence clearly shows that this variable drastically cuts
down on the number of random vandalisms. Please leave your complaints on
the talk page rather than fishing for support on the mailing list. Oh,
and I am that idiot. :)
Is this still a wiki, or do we have a policy of hindering edits on
The George W. Bush article is rather large, about 95 kilobytes, but
fortunately like most of our larger articles it's divided into many
smaller sections which can be edited individually.
Except they can't. Someone has *deliberately* inserted a
"noeditsection" directive into this article, and all suggestions that
this hinders editing are resisted, on the grounds that, as well as
hindering legitimate edits, it hinders vandalism.
I'm in a bit of a spitting fury over this. It seems to be the
silliest situation. If I want to correct a spelling error, I should
not be hindered in doing so by the action of some well-meaning idiot.
My vandalism analysis tool, which uses a simple but powerful
methodology developed by Brian0918, analyses edit summaries on
articles to spot probable vandalism reverts by recognising the summary
patterns of standard rollbacks, and edits labelled "rvv", "rv v" or
"rvc". It was developed for English Wikipedia but probably has
applications beyond that, and the methods developed here have obvious
utility beyond the recognition and reporting of vandalism.
You can visit it here:
Please try to break it, and tell me what happened. There is a link to
a discussion page for that purpose.
The rationale is that, while vandalism is difficult to recognise
electronically, a pretty easy and reasonably reliable way to track
vandalism on a popular wiki article is to examine edit summaries and
count the proportion of them that indicate that the editors apparently
believed themselves to be reverting vandalism.
A highly experimental adaptation of this script to recognise (only)
rollbacks on the German Wikipedia is here:
The text of the latter CGI script is currently in English, although it
is analyzing German text. As I know nothing about
internationalization I have no idea whether it will always perform
correctly if UTF-8 multibyte characters (such as o-umlaut) are
This simple test seems to suggest that it does work:
Wikipedia is an international project and I welcome any and all
testing input on this.
Presently I don't know of any edit summary patterns that
non-administrators on the German Wikipedia use to indicate that
they're reverting what we on English Wikipedia would recognise as
simple vandalism--as I'm unfamiliar with their practises I'm not even
certain that they draw the same distinctions that we do on English
Wikipedia between intentional and overt disruptive edits (simple
vandalism) and more subtle vandalism or trolling.
Any help on this that German speakers can offer would be most welcome.
Although I address the German Wikipedia prominently because its
community is highly advanced and well organized, its content
comparable to that of the English Wikipedia, and (not least) Deutsche
Wikipedia hosts the tool server, I would also love to produce useful
tools for as many languages as possible--the skills I learn can be put
to use in tools of more general use than the current one. The scripts
I write can easily be internationalized. I cannot write good German
(whenever I try, native German speakers beg me to stop!) but I can
write good French and reasonable Spanish. I am particularly
interested in Chinese, Indian languages, and Russian.
Matt Brown wrote:
>On 12/20/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>> Same template, *on* by default. This is for newbies. Note this was a
>> logged-in editor.
>Since only logged in editors can currently create articles anyway ...
I'd really really like anon page creation switched back on.
(a) A prefilled template would give guidance to editors of goodwill;
(b) editors of bad will are just creating accounts to write rubbish with anyway.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Larvatus
This Rfc is a serious one. It involves child rape allegations, a US
civil legal case, CEOs of international corporations, and a famous
German band. It needs input from a broad range of Wikipedians. Before I
removed the crime categories and POV content several weeks ago, I looked
at Larvtus's blogs, the cited CA court cases on line, and Larvatus's
entries on other websites. Content and categories were replaced and I
was scolded (my perception). I didn't start the Rfc but I signed the
request to acknowledge my attempts to modify the pages in dispute. I've
asked Larvtus to step back and let the community decide how to write
theses articles. I'm willing to step aside and let other Wikipedians
make the decision, in fact I would prefer it.--Sydney Poore
We have a real problem with unsourced defamatory biographies.
This morning, while working on the Help desk, I responded to a letter from
Lucianne Goldberg, who wrote seeking a deletion or correction to what she
considered to be two highly offensive paragraphs in her biography. I looked
at the article and saw that there were severe problems with some of the
material in it.
I have edited the article and sourced it as well as replying to her
attaching a copy of the article as rewritten by me. I am awaiting her advice
as to the specific information that was of concern to her. Once I have the
specifics, I will advise further on the matter.
However, the matter that I believe likely to be of most concern was in the
original version of the article and has survived for nearly two months with
multiple edits. There were no sources provided for the allegation. Frankly,
this problem has the potential to be another big problem with Wikipedia.
We need to pay particular attention to the biographies of contemporary
biographies especially of controversial figures. In particular, we need to
ensure that our articles are scrupulous in citing sources. We need to give
instructions to recent changes patrollers to be on the lookout for
biographies making negative claims without proper sourcing.
on http://fftw.org/~stevenj/Nature-reviews.doc, there is now a Microsoft
Word document describing the "errors" (in a broader sense) found by the
With this list, it is now much easier to deal with these articles. Note
that the kind of "error" varies from minor factual errors (wrong year)
to some kind of overall criticism (wrong proportions for competing
However, it should be possible to bring the number of "errors" in those
42 articles down to a much lower number (...and we can introduce brand
new ones, yeah!).
Thanks for helping out.
The folks at
will be thankful for your efforts in this matter.
At de.wikipedia, I am preparing an FAQ about this review, you might want
to join or do something in your own language. There was way too much
misinterpretation done by the press (mostly "in favour" of wikipedia,
which is not a good thing).
If an administrator coulod help me I would appreciate it. User:Curps has
blocked my User:DrKinsey user account on the incorrect basis that I have
been vandalising articles and creating user accounts with insulting
things about him in the username.
You will find details of how this situation arose on User:Curps talk
I would appreciate it if somebody with the technical know-how could
prove to User:Curps that he has made a mistake.
I am not receiving messages from the mailing list, so please email me
directly at hartenschwanz(a)fastmail.fm
Dr Leopold Hartenschwanz
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
> to get through FAC
> these days, you need the metric shitload of references. A lot of people
> seem to put them <small>, which helps the less-interested eye gloss over
> them reading the article.
> -- David Gerard
Would <http://tinyurl.com/9gaga> (Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and
Reference Check#Separate "Sources" namespace or subpage) not be better
if the requirement for the number of references increase?