There is a serious problem. As the number of Wikipedia rules spiral, we are seeing people figure out how to play the rules for their own personal edification. Meanwhile, three old-time users--172, AdamCarr, and Mirv, who have thousands of valuable edits to their name (regardless of what anyone might think of any of them personally)--have either been blocked or left the project in the past 24 hours.
Frankly, I never supported the 3RR, either the first time it was implemented, or this, the second time. I certainly oppose the idea that it takes precedence, or is even on an equal footing, with the goal of creating an _accurate_, NPOV, open-source encyclopedia. Comments equating it with that are misguided. 3RR was put in place, not as an objective in itself, but as a means to an end, that end being the creation of an accurate corpus of human knowledge. And yet, while people are willing to block for violating the 3RR, how many people are willing to block for pushing POV or adding inaccurate information consistently? That is a problem.
So I reiterate: 3RR is not a goal of Wikipedia. In an ideal world, it would not even be necessary. It is merely a means to an end.
The problem begins when focus solely on 3RR, disregarding our real goals.
People are gaming these rules. While I would like to believe that most people have the good of Wikipedia at heart, the fact is that it is downright impossible, given the size of Wikipedia, to follow all the arguments, follow all the reverts, and step in when necessary. It once was, but that is no longer the case. Nor is it legitimate to expect people who do not have IRC to get it and go there when they face a problem. This is not an IRC project.
I do not know the solution to this problem, but I think that it should be stated. Personally, I hope that Jimbo appoints a group of trusted users to examine the problem and come up with some solutions.
Danny
In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
- d.
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0000, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
Perhaps you should read the discussion page. There is a gulf between public perception and reality here, obviously. Much like people incorrectly believing that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of England.
Skyring wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0000, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
Perhaps you should read the discussion page. There is a gulf between public perception and reality here, obviously. Much like people incorrectly believing that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of England.
Ah, this makes it clear - it's [[original research]], then.
- d.
Skyring wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0000, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
Perhaps you should read the discussion page. There is a gulf between public perception and reality here, obviously. Much like people incorrectly believing that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of England.
Yes, including the Australian Republican Movement evidently.
Sorry, couldn't resist reply!
TBSDY
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
Tsk tsk, David. Respect the process. You must leave the erroneous information in, and attempt to reason with the inserter on the Talk: page. People who revert are simply thinking like an "edit warrior". I'm sure the postings on this list, including those from the person promoting the "Australia is a republic" idea itself, have made it quite clear that a few well-chosen words in Talk: will have the person promoting the idea that "Australia is a republic" repudiating his views and voluntarily reverting his contributions in no time at all.
Jay.
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:19:25 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
Tsk tsk, David. Respect the process. You must leave the erroneous information in, and attempt to reason with the inserter on the Talk: page. People who revert are simply thinking like an "edit warrior". I'm sure the postings on this list, including those from the person promoting the "Australia is a republic" idea itself, have made it quite clear that a few well-chosen words in Talk: will have the person promoting the idea that "Australia is a republic" repudiating his views and voluntarily reverting his contributions in no time at all.
Jay.
Actuakky what David was saying is if it's vandalism, just protecy the page already, or block the vandal. Problem solved.
There is _never_ any need for a legit user to break the 3RR
Theresa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:19:25 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
Tsk tsk, David. Respect the process. You must leave the erroneous information in, and attempt to reason with the inserter on the Talk: page. People who revert are simply thinking like an "edit warrior". I'm sure the postings on this list, including those from the person promoting the "Australia is a republic" idea itself, have made it quite clear that a few well-chosen words in Talk: will have the person promoting the idea that "Australia is a republic" repudiating his views and voluntarily reverting his contributions in no time at all.
This is precisely the case. I can be swayed by facts and checkable sources. Abuse and hand-waving just doesn't do it for me.
Skyring wrote:
a few well-chosen words in Talk: will have the person promoting the idea that "Australia is a republic" repudiating his views and voluntarily reverting his contributions in no time at all.
This is precisely the case. I can be swayed by facts and checkable sources. Abuse and hand-waving just doesn't do it for me.
Assuming good faith really does work miracles. I love the quote at [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]]
"Remember Hanlon's Razor http://www.indopedia.org/Hanlon%27s_Razor.html. Behavior that may appear malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're *100% sure* that someone is a /worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking *Internet troll http://www.indopedia.org/Internet_troll.html*/, vandal, or worse, /comfort yourself as if they're not./ By being forgiving, instructive, and respectful, you come away with much more dignity, and you reflect well on our project."
Tom Haws
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
There is a serious problem. As the number of Wikipedia rules spiral, we are seeing people figure out how to play the rules for their own personal edification. Meanwhile, three old-time users--172, AdamCarr, and Mirv, who have thousands of valuable edits to their name (regardless of what anyone might think of any of them personally)--have either been blocked or left the project in the past 24 hours.
I don't know about Mirv, but I'm not surprised about the other two; their attitude has always been that they should be able to do whatever they think is right, and to hell with anyone who dares to disagree.
The 3RR is a really simple and obvious rule. I think it's eminently reasonable to expect a PhD to figure out that if a second revert hasn't solved a problem, a third one won't either, nor would a fourth, fifth, or 37th. The fact that they revert anyway shows that it's more important to them to get their way than anything else. They can only be "gamed" because they don't even respect other editors enough to stop the reflexive reverting and ask for help.
This whole blocking for rule violation process should be like speeding; if I get caught going over 65 or whatever, then my rational reaction is to take the punishment or plead extenuating circumstances, and then to get on with my life - not to argue that the concept of laws is mistaken, that speed limits shouldn't exist because they interfere with the overall goals of society, that they should exist for everybody except me because I'm the only competent driver on the road, or to sell my car.
Stan
From: daniwo59@aol.com
Frankly, I never supported the 3RR, either the first time it was implemented, or this, the second time. I certainly oppose the idea that it takes precedence, or is even on an equal footing, with the goal of creating an _accurate_, NPOV, open-source encyclopedia. Comments equating it with that are misguided. 3RR was put in place, not as an objective in itself, but as a means to an end, that end being the creation of an accurate corpus of human knowledge. And yet, while people are willing to block for violating the 3RR, how many people are willing to block for pushing POV or adding inaccurate information consistently? That is a problem.
So I reiterate: 3RR is not a goal of Wikipedia. In an ideal world, it would not even be necessary. It is merely a means to an end.
True. However, I've seen instances where editors have reverted pages 14 times in half a day, against the will of a half dozen editors, with no sanction then or now. Enforcement of the 3RR has put an end to that kind of nonsense. POV pushing has always been a problem, but I've seen no indication that 3RR enforcement has made the POV pushing problem any worse than it was before, and it has demonstrably helped ameliorate egregious edit-warring problems.
Jay.
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 15:56:39 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
True. However, I've seen instances where editors have reverted pages 14 times in half a day, against the will of a half dozen editors, with no sanction then or now. Enforcement of the 3RR has put an end to that kind of nonsense. POV pushing has always been a problem, but I've seen no indication that 3RR enforcement has made the POV pushing problem any worse than it was before, and it has demonstrably helped ameliorate egregious edit-warring problems.
The 3RR is an recognition of the belief among (I suspect) a good majority of Wikipedians that revert-warring is wrong and counterproductive. There are those whose position seems to be "Yes, I revert war, but I'm a revert warrior for GOOD causes, so doesn't that make it right?" I'd disagree; revert wars don't solve anything, and they're simply conflict by attrition, and they make it harder for anyone else to contribute to the article in question. I'd say the above position is the "Wik disease" - stemming from a belief that one is indispensable to Wikipedia, that it will all fall apart without constant war.
-Matt