My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing
is slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in
our projects.
In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of
admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that
the "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35
versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor
(false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp
reacted quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in
most of the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the
effort from GazProm promoting their propaganda article /Football for
Friendship / in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
Are we slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so,
is then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to
implement it all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition
to help out on areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not
established, but would it be more correct to put effort in regaining
control of the very many Wikipedia versions, that is definitely
degenerating and we are loosing what has been done on these. (as a test
look at "latest changes" on some of the versions with low editing, it is
depressing to see that there often are more vandal editing, not being
undone, then proper new material)
Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort
concentrated on getting (back) control on our material in our projects,
before we start efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed
upon. Perhaps a number of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as
many as there are stewards today, would be necessary not to lose out.
Anders
//