On 2/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I think you misunderstand the opposition to the "CVU". I very much doubt anyone is questioning the importance of fighting vandalism! I think the opposition comes from three main aspects:
- The name implies (though the page itself explicitly denies) that
the Unit is The Way vandalism is fought. I know this is explicitly denied, but it is implied, and many people won't read all the way down. My solution: use [[Wikipedia:RC Patrol]] to co-ordinate RC patrol.
Problem is they are not doing RC patrol in the clasical sense (remeber RC patrol was not originaly pure anti vandalism.)
- The images imply (though the page denies) that the Unit is
sanctioned by the Foundation. The images actually are in violation of the WMF's visual identity guidelines IMO. Solution: remove the images.
The images do not imply that except to the tiny percentage of people who have some idea about the reltionship between wikipedia the foundation and the logo.
- There exists a category for members. This again implies that only
those members are "qualified" RC patrollers. Whilst *I* understand that that is not intended, that is nonetheless a point that comes across.
Oh dear. It would then appear that people are going to think we have only 126 people "qualified" to counter systemic bias.
Note that I do not say these things out of dislike for those affliliated to the CVU. I admire the work they do. I just have misgivings about the manner in which they organise themselves. Too often I have seen people replying to criticism of the way the organisation is run with "but look at all the work we do reverting vandalism". But that misunderstands the reason for the opposition.
I ask those who support the CVU: 1) how does it help Wikipedia in ways that a non-organisational structure couldn't?
Try thinking about people a second. People who are prepared to sit there day after day fighting off vandalism are a little different from others. Oh a lot of people go through a vandle fighting stage but they burn out on that. That means we need a constant stream of new recruites and ways to try and get the old hands stay on. CVU helps with both. We know from "internet wars" that there are a fair number of combat orentated internet users. CVU takes that and channels it into something useful.
and 2) is the good it does really more significant than the dislike it creates among other Wikipedians?
On the basis that the average wikipedian is unlikely to have many dealings with it I'm going for yes.
-- geni