On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
This seems like an overemphasis that somehow we (the
policy-abiding editors)
are the cause instead of the vandals being the cause. The primary cause of
the vandalism rests with the vandals. Our policies address this case
spot-on, but nobody fixed the article. Why didn't they? Maybe we need more
editors. Maybe we need an automatic "bad-word robot" to collect examples and
create
a "bad word page". That would make it a lot easier to monitor. But this
case is not a result of our policies, our policies say "don't do this".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
The vandals will vandal. The libers will libel. The haters will hate.
The POV pushers will push. They are a small but real and unavoidable
facet of reality. A healthy Wikipedia would recognize it and mitigate
it. The existing mitigation on English Wikipedia is rather limited
and highly dependent on chance. ... basically a set of rules that say
"don't do this", but very little in the way of organized enforcement.
The English Wikipedia community is aware, or at least ought to be
aware, that these things happen routinely and t the community has one
of the most potent positions from which to make improvements. As such
it's the responsibility of the English Wikipedia community to try.
The argument that the vandals are ultimately responsible isn't
productive since none of us has the power to change the nature of man.
We do have the power to change the operation of English Wikipedia.
If you think that some of the proposed improvements are too sweeping
and dramatic, then perhaps you should be working on making sure some
alternatives happen... since covering our ears and holding the status
quo simply can't last forever.