On 2/3/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)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:
1) 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
Problem is they are not doing RC patrol in the clasical sense (remeber
RC patrol was not originaly pure anti vandalism.)
2) The images imply (though the page denies) that the
sanctioned by the Foundation. The images actually are in violation of
the WMF's visual identity guidelines IMO. Solution: remove the
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.
3) 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
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
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
On the basis that the average wikipedian is unlikely to have many
dealings with it I'm going for yes.