[WikiEN-l] The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

[geni]

On 2/3/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> What most of the people on this thread fail to recognize is that
> creating anti-vandalism paramilitaries *encourages* vandalism.
>

They are no more paramilitaries than any other editor

> Calling any less-than productive edit "vandalism" by definition
> encourages vandalism.

I assume CVU uses our standard difintion of vandalism. I assume you
have read the page.

>
> On one end of the spectrum is the concept that any "non-authorized"
> edit is vandalism--that seems absurd for Wikipedia, but it's the
> standard at, say, Encyclopedia Britannica or a newspaper, the Nupedia
> project, etc.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum is that there is no such thing as
> vandalism, just edits that are less helpful than others.
>
> We should try to function as close to the latter end as possible.
>

So? CVU don't set the rules.

> The very word "vandalism" I think is a somewhat false analogy, since
> there's no permanent damage in Wikipedia. It's just as easy, easier in
> fact, to remove unwanted edits than to add them. It's the exact
> reverse of, say, spraypainting a wall or scratching your name in a
> subway car window -- much easier to add than to remove.
>

However not not everyone does removal. Thus those who do want to find
the problems and remove them with the minnium of effort.

> By creating the crime of vandalism we make people into criminals.
>

Umm no. I'm pretty sure that vandaliseing wikipedia is not a criminal
offence. Even in the COURT OF TRENTON NEW JERSY

> By creating categories of good users we create categories of bad users.
>

Umm yes and?

> By creating restrictions, rules, trials we create mechanisms for conflict.
>

People don't need mechanisms for content. Trust me on this.

> I'm not saying that there should be no mechanisms for continuing to
> improve the quality of Wikipedia -- but that we are going down the
> wrong road now.
>
> There's always been a steady amount of less-than helpful edits. But
> calling them all vandalism, doing things like "sprotecting" pages,
> creating militias, only abets the problem.

We don't call all less-than helpful edits vandalism.

--
geni