-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Cunctator stated for the record:
What most of the people on this thread fail to
recognize is that
creating anti-vandalism paramilitaries *encourages* vandalism.
Calling any less-than productive edit "vandalism" by definition
encourages vandalism.
On one end of the spectrum is the concept that any "non-authorized"
edit is vandalism--that seems absurd for Wikipedia, but it's the
standard at, say, Encyclopedia Britannica or a newspaper, the Nupedia
project, etc.
At the other end of the spectrum is that there is no such thing as
vandalism, just edits that are less helpful than others.
We should try to function as close to the latter end as possible.
The very word "vandalism" I think is a somewhat false analogy, since
there's no permanent damage in Wikipedia. It's just as easy, easier in
fact, to remove unwanted edits than to add them. It's the exact
reverse of, say, spraypainting a wall or scratching your name in a
subway car window -- much easier to add than to remove.
By creating the crime of vandalism we make people into criminals.
By creating categories of good users we create categories of bad users.
By creating restrictions, rules, trials we create mechanisms for conflict.
I'm not saying that there should be no mechanisms for continuing to
improve the quality of Wikipedia -- but that we are going down the
wrong road now.
There's always been a steady amount of less-than helpful edits. But
calling them all vandalism, doing things like "sprotecting" pages,
creating militias, only abets the problem.
==See also==
* [[Proof by assertion]]
added "see also" section ~~~~
- --
Sean Barrett | They can have my DeLameter when they
sean(a)epoptic.org | pry it from my cold, dead tentacle.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD48UrMAt1wyd9d+URAumvAJkBvq1nsYMVUhhd6Re1IljI4Y9bTQCeKg5g
VFilUPvgWQcTdMPg0x0qD10=
=JFEL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----