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.
So what do you suggest we call it when someone blanks the featured
article and overwrites it with "COCK COCK COCK COCK COCK FUCK ASS
COCK GAY LOLWTFBBQ"?
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch