[Foundation-l] Frequency of Seeing Bad Versions - now with traffic data

[Lars Aronsson]

Anthony wrote:

> Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
> 
> Is the question how to objectively *define* "vandalism"?

On one hand, we have a perception, as expressed by media (and by 
CEO Sue Gardner, I believe), that vandalism (especially of 
biographies of living people, BLP) is an increasing problem.  On 
the other hand, we have the habit of always asking for proofs and 
measurements: Citation needed!

We can try to find out which edits are reverts, assuming that the 
previous edit was an act of vandalism.  That way we can conclude 
which articles were vandalized and how long it took to revert 
them.  Add to that: How many readers viewed the vandalized 
version?  Vandalism is harmless if nobody watches it. It is mostly 
harmless if it is obvious and childish (e.g. Barack Obama was born 
on Mars, he's a space alien).  When it does harm (and becomes a 
problem, allegedly an increasing problem) is when it is viewed and 
taken for the truth (e.g. a statement that Barack Obama was not 
born in the U.S. and thus would not be a legitimate president).

Especially, it becomes a very real problem if the biographed 
living person takes offense and takes legal action against the 
WMF.  Now, that's very easy to measure: How much money did WMF 
need to spend, month by month, to resolve such conflicts, 
including time to explain the process to media?  That is money 
that could be used to buy servers instead.  A more efficient BLP 
policy might render the WMF more money for servers. Very real. 
Now, we only need to insert real numbers into this equation.


-- 
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se