On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Please read all of the following, and ask whether it reflects the values we all hold for our project.
With all due respect, no, of course it doesn't. You know that. You also know that in a project of this size things like this are going to happen - the article was a frequent target for vandalism. It was reverted frequently, generally, it looks like, by non-admins. On the 17th it became the target of vandalism for a spree that lasted three days. The vandalism was frequently reverted.
So what, exactly, do you see as the problem? That it often took a few hours for the vandalism to get noticed? That one of two million articles fell through the cracks such that it wasn't instantly noticed on people's watchlists? What, exactly, do you see as the egregious problem here?
And furthermore, you know better than to argue via anecdotal evidence like this. An article was the subject of a vandalism attack and was fixed a bit more slowly than we might like. And? What's the systemic problem you see? Where's your evidence that the problem is actually systemic?
What do you think we should be doing differently? It's unfair and insulting to the community to pop up and take us all to task for failing to deal with one case. What do you want changed? What's your actual idea here? Because otherwise this feels a lot like a bit of random scolding with no actual content or thought.
-Phil