[WikiEN-l] Date vandalism

[Steve Bennett]

On 8/23/06, Ruud Koot <r.koot at students.uu.nl> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Thanks for raising this issue, it's something that had bothered me. I
> > see a lot of these little changes (frequently population changes,
> > number of career wins of some sportsperson etc...) and am torn between
> > assuming good faith (and respecting the wiki model that people are
> > making small improvements), and suspecting vandalism.
>
> If you can't distinguish between a small correction or vandalism, this
> probably means the fact isn't sourced. Either add a source, or if you
> can't at least a {{citeneeded}} or related tag.

Sure, but extremely few dates anywhere are sourced. Consider a
midlength article with no sources at all, and someone comes and
changes one date. Sure, you can put {{citeneeded}}. But will it help?

We're not quite at the point of treating unsourced information as the
exception as the rule :)

> Indeed. I believe edit summaries should be made mandatory, that would
> really help to detect vandalism.

Um, what does "mandatory" mean. If you're talking about a technical
solution, it's a waste of time.

Incidentally, I have managed to get my edit summary usage up to 100%.
It was tough, but I've finally changed my habits.

Steve