I recently joined facebook.com, the social networking site. Facebook allows people to form groups, and there are numerous ones matching "Wikipedia". (I quite liked the one called "fricken wikipedia, its 4am!") The majority are silly ones titled with variations along the lines of "Everything I know I learnt from Wikipedia", but there are also some anti-Wikipedia or even pro-vandal groups, like this one: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2205217096 (sorry, you may not be able to see that without an account) - "GLOBAL Wikipedia Vandals".
People are posting comments like this:
[[ Personally, I wish we could all collaborate on a mass group edit. Imagine if we each created 50-100 sockpuppets, had access to a few different computers each, and ran some scripting programs to speed up our work for us...the only way i think it could be any better, is if we actually had, say 10 admin accounts and could block the entire recent changes patrol as well as the counter-vandalism unit, then go about editing on a massive scale. Personally i think that would be a testimony to the power of individual free-speech, not to mention an intriguing social experiment. ]]
and this:
[[ I've played around with the idea of doing a lot of legit edits with one account to apply for adminship eventually. It's something I'd like to have done by the summer.
As for the mass vandalism idea, I love it. We should get some interested parties. Whoever wants in, message me on Facebook (we'll try not to leave most of the plan out in the open). ]]
This is worrying. We should probably try and keep an eye on these places.
On 4/4/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I recently joined facebook.com, the social networking site. Facebook allows people to form groups, and there are numerous ones matching "Wikipedia". (I quite liked the one called "fricken wikipedia, its 4am!") The majority are silly ones titled with variations along the lines of "Everything I know I learnt from Wikipedia", but there are also some anti-Wikipedia or even pro-vandal groups, like this one: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2205217096 (sorry, you may not be able to see that without an account) - "GLOBAL Wikipedia Vandals".
People are posting comments like this:
[[ Personally, I wish we could all collaborate on a mass group edit. Imagine if we each created 50-100 sockpuppets, had access to a few different computers each, and ran some scripting programs to speed up our work for us...the only way i think it could be any better, is if we actually had, say 10 admin accounts and could block the entire recent changes patrol as well as the counter-vandalism unit, then go about editing on a massive scale. Personally i think that would be a testimony to the power of individual free-speech, not to mention an intriguing social experiment. ]]
and this:
[[ I've played around with the idea of doing a lot of legit edits with one account to apply for adminship eventually. It's something I'd like to have done by the summer.
As for the mass vandalism idea, I love it. We should get some interested parties. Whoever wants in, message me on Facebook (we'll try not to leave most of the plan out in the open). ]]
This is worrying. We should probably try and keep an eye on these places.
Probably. Either they're just a lot of hot air, or serious. Anyone willing to be a double agent on one of these?
Seriously.
~~~~
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
This is worrying. We should probably try and keep an eye on these places.
Probably. Either they're just a lot of hot air, or serious. Anyone willing to be a double agent on one of these?
Why? It's just vandalism. Even if they block out the bulk of the normal RC patrol and CVU it'll get stopped quickly and undone. Yes, it'd be a bit of work to undo. But it would be far less work than trying to watch every place vandals might be planning something.
-Phil
Prevention is better than cure...not often they tell us they're going to vandalise.
On 04/04/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
This is worrying. We should probably try and keep an eye on these places.
Probably. Either they're just a lot of hot air, or serious. Anyone willing to be a double agent on one of these?
Why? It's just vandalism. Even if they block out the bulk of the normal RC patrol and CVU it'll get stopped quickly and undone. Yes, it'd be a bit of work to undo. But it would be far less work than trying to watch every place vandals might be planning something.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/4/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
This is worrying. We should probably try and keep an eye on these places.
Probably. Either they're just a lot of hot air, or serious. Anyone willing to be a double agent on one of these?
Why? It's just vandalism. Even if they block out the bulk of the normal RC patrol and CVU it'll get stopped quickly and undone. Yes, it'd be a bit of work to undo. But it would be far less work than trying to watch every place vandals might be planning something.
-Phil
Yeah - especially these days, the effort it takes to get one admin account is probably enough to dissuade almost anyone who wants to get one to do evil. Trying to get 10 of them would take an awful lot of effort.
Of course, trying to take out RC patrollers is probably one of the least efficient ways to do harm with an admin account.
On 04/04/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
This is worrying. We should probably try and keep an eye on these places.
Probably. Either they're just a lot of hot air, or serious. Anyone willing to be a double agent on one of these?
Why? It's just vandalism. Even if they block out the bulk of the normal RC patrol and CVU it'll get stopped quickly and undone. Yes, it'd be a bit of work to undo. But it would be far less work than trying to watch every place vandals might be planning something.
-Phil
Yeah - especially these days, the effort it takes to get one admin account is probably enough to dissuade almost anyone who wants to get one to do evil. Trying to get 10 of them would take an awful lot of effort.
Of course, trying to take out RC patrollers is probably one of the least efficient ways to do harm with an admin account.
Another interesting group: "Abolish Abstinence-Only Wikipedia Education" (97 members):
"Is anyone else tired of listening to clueless teachers bash Wikipedia? They complain that it can't be used for research because it's "not a source." They tell you that anyone can write whatever they want, so it must be wrong. I've even heard teachers say that "the author" makes stuff up.
Our schools say "Sex is bad, but we're going to tell you how to do it safely just in case." Why don't they apply the same policy to Wikipedia-- teaching students about the proper way to use it instead of indiscriminately banning it. These teachers are well aware that students are going to continue using Wikipedia anyway. I'm convinced that they just don't understand what Wikipedia is or how to use it."
Another interesting group: "Abolish Abstinence-Only Wikipedia Education" (97 members):
"Is anyone else tired of listening to clueless teachers bash Wikipedia? They complain that it can't be used for research because it's "not a source." They tell you that anyone can write whatever they want, so it must be wrong. I've even heard teachers say that "the author" makes stuff up.
Our schools say "Sex is bad, but we're going to tell you how to do it safely just in case." Why don't they apply the same policy to Wikipedia-- teaching students about the proper way to use it instead of indiscriminately banning it. These teachers are well aware that students are going to continue using Wikipedia anyway. I'm convinced that they just don't understand what Wikipedia is or how to use it."
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
My feelings exactly.
On 4/5/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Another interesting group: "Abolish Abstinence-Only Wikipedia Education" (97 members):
"Is anyone else tired of listening to clueless teachers bash Wikipedia? They complain that it can't be used for research because it's "not a source." They tell you that anyone can write whatever they want, so it must be wrong. I've even heard teachers say that "the author" makes stuff up.
Our schools say "Sex is bad, but we're going to tell you how to do it safely just in case." Why don't they apply the same policy to Wikipedia-- teaching students about the proper way to use it instead of indiscriminately banning it. These teachers are well aware that students are going to continue using Wikipedia anyway. I'm convinced that they just don't understand what Wikipedia is or how to use it."
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
My feelings exactly.
The conclusions reached are generally sound, but I don't think a group campaigning to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source should be supported. We're a patently unreliable source. We're a jumping off point for learning about a topic and finding sources - not a source in ourselves.
Johnleemk
The conclusions reached are generally sound, but I don't think a group campaigning to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source should be supported. We're a patently unreliable source. We're a jumping off point for learning about a topic and finding sources - not a source in ourselves.
Johnleemk
Well, yes-- but that's how we teach the students to use it. Not a source in ourselves. Just like Britannica.
~~~~