On 2/6/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
As for the project itself, I don't see it adding "process"; it seems like a way to centralize certain resources and participation, which I don't think is negative in any way.
I think the CVU is a clear win for Wikipedia and holding back the masses (and I do mean *masses*) of vandalism. Curps in particular has done some amazing work with bot-based detection of vandalism, needed to counter the bot-based vandalism that is fashionable amongst the kiddies these days. You really would not believe the mountains of crap the CVU holds back.
If the name is the real issue, I don't see anything wrong with calling it "WikiProject Counter Vandalism Project", which after all is what it is.
This is getting somewhere--now if we can come up with a positive, rather than negative name, we'd be perfect.
Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation cabal").