Nicholas Knight wrote:
if we tried to make a public issue out of it, the publicity would do more damage to Wikipedia than to the ISP.
How?
Because the publicity would focus on our inability to effectively control our content or guarantee even a minimum level of reliability. The ISP's reluctance to help us enforce a ban on some obnoxious user would be ignored.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Because the publicity would focus on our inability to effectively control our content or guarantee even a minimum level of reliability.
This would be the last step *in effectively controlling our content*.
How else do you prevent people who circumvent any and all technological measures from editing without burning out volunteers who have to keep up with them?
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Because the publicity would focus on our inability to effectively control our content or guarantee even a minimum level of reliability.
This would be the last step *in effectively controlling our content*.
How else do you prevent people who circumvent any and all technological measures from editing without burning out volunteers who have to keep up with them?
I just thought I'd point out something from [[User:UninvitedCompany]]'s user page - Wikipedia is a hundred times smaller than MSN. When we're that big (which could definitely not be too far in the future), we'll have a hundred CheeseDreams-like editors. True, we'll have a hundred times more editors than we do now to clean up the mess, but the question is, will we be able to put up against a hundred editors using tactics like CheeseDreams? I am not necessarily advocating Nicholas' proposal, but we should bear in mind that a minute saved is a minute earned. A minute spent reverting CheeseDreams could be a minute spent adding references to an article or a minute spent wikifying a decent new article. CheeseDreams' tactics of attrition are wearing us down, and it's doubtful whether a hundred times more editors would be capable of dealing with a hundred CheeseDreams.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee wrote:
like CheeseDreams? I am not necessarily advocating Nicholas' proposal,
And I'm *very* anxious to hear any practical alternatives. I do not like the idea of large-scale blocks, but I'm at a loss for better ideas.
I just think I'll note: I'm not really that worn down. So far I've blocked at least 6-7 CheeseDreams accounts. However, this should have been seen to be a problem when the following edit happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=7165...
Note the comment in the history. "Remove inusefor tag. Haven't finished, but really tired now. Will sort out the mess tommorrow." Then, check the state of the article!
Yet when I reverted back due to an editor going into an EXTREMELY controversial article (even before CD edited this it was controversial!) and just taking away all the material.
I think that this diff really says it all about the whole situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=7203... (before CheeseDreams and after CheeseDreams).
TBSDY
John Lee wrote:
I just thought I'd point out something from [[User:UninvitedCompany]]'s user page - Wikipedia is a hundred times smaller than MSN. When we're that big (which could definitely not be too far in the future), we'll have a hundred CheeseDreams-like editors. True, we'll have a hundred times more editors than we do now to clean up the mess, but the question is, will we be able to put up against a hundred editors using tactics like CheeseDreams? I am not necessarily advocating Nicholas' proposal, but we should bear in mind that a minute saved is a minute earned. A minute spent reverting CheeseDreams could be a minute spent adding references to an article or a minute spent wikifying a decent new article. CheeseDreams' tactics of attrition are wearing us down, and it's doubtful whether a hundred times more editors would be capable of dealing with a hundred CheeseDreams.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
I just think I'll note: I'm not really that worn down. So far I've blocked at least 6-7 CheeseDreams accounts. However, this should have been seen to be a problem when the following edit happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=7165...
Note the comment in the history. "Remove inusefor tag. Haven't finished, but really tired now. Will sort out the mess tommorrow." Then, check the state of the article!
Yet when I reverted back due to an editor going into an EXTREMELY controversial article (even before CD edited this it was controversial!) and just taking away all the material.
Hmm... that makes no sense. I meant to say "Yet when I reverted back due to an editor going into an EXTREMELY controversial article (even before CD edited this it was controversial!) and just taking away all the material I got told that I should stay away from the article because I was too close to it (no offense to the one who said that to me).
I think that this diff really says it all about the whole situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=7203...
(before CheeseDreams and after CheeseDreams).
TBSDY
John Lee wrote:
I just thought I'd point out something from [[User:UninvitedCompany]]'s user page - Wikipedia is a hundred times smaller than MSN. When we're that big (which could definitely not be too far in the future), we'll have a hundred CheeseDreams-like editors. True, we'll have a hundred times more editors than we do now to clean up the mess, but the question is, will we be able to put up against a hundred editors using tactics like CheeseDreams? I am not necessarily advocating Nicholas' proposal, but we should bear in mind that a minute saved is a minute earned. A minute spent reverting CheeseDreams could be a minute spent adding references to an article or a minute spent wikifying a decent new article. CheeseDreams' tactics of attrition are wearing us down, and it's doubtful whether a hundred times more editors would be capable of dealing with a hundred CheeseDreams.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])