Sigh. And now for
"never-attribute-to-malice-what-can-be-explained-by-stupidity,-part
-2"...
On Jul 6, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Cobb wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
And, for "vandalism", it still is. For
misguided people - it has
always been discussion until either the misguided people
change their minds or enough other people get fed up, then
more or less forceful requests to leave.
There are no such things as page creation vandals?
Of course there are - creating a
page is a type of editing, and, like
all types of edits, creating pages can be done in bad faith with intent
to damage the 'pedia - that is vandalism. Typical examples include
creating pages that say "Joe is gay!", or creating pages containing
subtle hoaxes - you can't do that accidentally, or due to
misunderstanding, only by actively intending to damage the 'pedia.
However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the
people who create them are not vandals. People who think the
encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of
history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they
just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not*
intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so
*are* *not* vandals. You seemed to be implying they were.
How
interesting. Do please expand on this fascinating new
insight into what is currently happening on WIkipedia?
I just did. Hopefully you
will be able to respond to it with some
actual attention this time.
Jesse Weinstein