On 10/19/05, Martin Richards Martin@velocitymanager.com wrote:
From: "Tony Sidaway"
Show me some old vandalism.
Well I just reverted a 15 day old 3/4 page blank of [[Complement good]]. Let me guess, it doesnt count as vandalism because it might have been a good faith blanking?
Not plausible. Looks like an obvious case of vandalism to me.
(On Bill Gates)
Yes. The point is, that isn't vandalism.
Yeah, but it doesnt matter what you label it, an edit either makes wikipedia better or worse.
Well we're talking about vandalism, here, not sloppy editing. Specifically the suggestion further up the thread was that we needed to tackle vandalism because it's so serious, and you said "This is a project to make the best encyclopedia ever, policy and procedure should evolve as our problems evolve, and vandalim is one of the biggest problems, it discredits us, wastes our time, and puts off good users. The least we could do is be able to block vandals properly when they do surface."
Personally I think that bad writing and driving away newcomers are the two worst problems of the project. The former can be fixed over time with effort. The latter will kill us if we keep it up. Compared to those, vandalism doesn't even count as a blip on the radar screen.