[WikiEN-l] Date vandalism

[Christopher Larberg]

On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 00:39 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> There are a lot of drive-by commentless date changes. Much (but not
> all of them) are vandalism.  They are often difficult to fact check,
> and these days with so much vandalism reverted by bots, I'm worried
> that even more date changes are being missed.

I can't necessarily speak for anyone else, but my instinct would be to
revert edits that consist solely or almost solely of uncited date
changes on sight and ask the editor responsible to provide a reference
in the article if he or she wants to re-add . As editors, we should have
a high standard of verifiability for such basic and easily researched
facts as dates.
-- 
Christopher Larberg <christopherlarberg at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060822/ce61a1bf/attachment.pgp