On 2/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Problem is they are not doing RC patrol in the clasical sense (remeber RC patrol was not originaly pure anti vandalism.)
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I can't separate fighting vandalism from fighting all the other junk that Wikipedia gets. Aye, they're different, and categorised differently, but if I see a copyvio I'm going to tag it, if I see an AfD-worthy article, I'll AfD it. Are you suggesting that these activities should be ignored by this group of users?
- The images imply (though the page denies) that the Unit is
sanctioned by the Foundation. The images actually are in violation of the WMF's visual identity guidelines IMO. Solution: remove the images.
The images do not imply that except to the tiny percentage of people who have some idea about the reltionship between wikipedia the foundation and the logo.
With respect, Minister, I disagree.
- There exists a category for members. This again implies that only
those members are "qualified" RC patrollers. Whilst *I* understand that that is not intended, that is nonetheless a point that comes across.
Oh dear. It would then appear that people are going to think we have only 126 people "qualified" to counter systemic bias.
A project entitled a "project" gives a wholly different impression to one labelled a "unit".
Note that I do not say these things out of dislike for those affliliated to the CVU. I admire the work they do. I just have misgivings about the manner in which they organise themselves. Too often I have seen people replying to criticism of the way the organisation is run with "but look at all the work we do reverting vandalism". But that misunderstands the reason for the opposition.
I ask those who support the CVU: 1) how does it help Wikipedia in ways that a non-organisational structure couldn't?
Try thinking about people a second. People who are prepared to sit there day after day fighting off vandalism are a little different from others. Oh a lot of people go through a vandle fighting stage but they burn out on that. That means we need a constant stream of new recruites and ways to try and get the old hands stay on. CVU helps with both. We know from "internet wars" that there are a fair number of combat orentated internet users. CVU takes that and channels it into something useful.
I am missing a key part of your logic: how does the CVU encourage users to start RC patrolling in a way that a less organisational page wouldn't?
and 2) is the good it does really more significant than the dislike it creates among other Wikipedians?
On the basis that the average wikipedian is unlikely to have many dealings with it I'm going for yes.
I didn't say "the average Wikipedian", I said "other Wikipedians". Difference.
-- Sam