Nicholas Knight wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Because the publicity would focus on our inability to effectively control our content or guarantee even a minimum level of reliability.
This would be the last step *in effectively controlling our content*.
How else do you prevent people who circumvent any and all technological measures from editing without burning out volunteers who have to keep up with them?
I just thought I'd point out something from [[User:UninvitedCompany]]'s user page - Wikipedia is a hundred times smaller than MSN. When we're that big (which could definitely not be too far in the future), we'll have a hundred CheeseDreams-like editors. True, we'll have a hundred times more editors than we do now to clean up the mess, but the question is, will we be able to put up against a hundred editors using tactics like CheeseDreams? I am not necessarily advocating Nicholas' proposal, but we should bear in mind that a minute saved is a minute earned. A minute spent reverting CheeseDreams could be a minute spent adding references to an article or a minute spent wikifying a decent new article. CheeseDreams' tactics of attrition are wearing us down, and it's doubtful whether a hundred times more editors would be capable of dealing with a hundred CheeseDreams.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])