On 2/3/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I ask those who support the CVU: 1) how does it help Wikipedia in ways that a non-organisational structure couldn't?
Organization always is more productive than lack thereof. In theory an organized approached to watching for vandalism should work better than an unorganized one. Wikipedia is highly organized. It's a flexible organization, and entirely voluntary, but it's organized. This list is a form of organization. So are administators, arbcom, featured articles, collaborations of the week, village pump, and, my favorite, reference desk.
and 2) is the good it
does really more significant than the dislike it creates among other Wikipedians?
I don't have any way to quantify this. Honestly I didn't even know there were people who spent time worrying about these things until this thread. I've never been struck either way by it. Have they be infringing on the rights of others? Have they been colluding to do anything negative to the encyclopedia? If not, then I say lay off. If it's just a matter of your personal interpretation of what their name implies, I'd first have to wonder how common it was. I never came away with the conclusions you did.
I might also say that I also don't see any evidence that vandalism has increased in the face of anti-vandalism efforts. And anti-vandalism efforts, in my understanding of the term, simply means monitoring for vandalism, undoing vandalism, and blocking repeat offenders. What's so wrong about that? What's so wrong about organizing that?
FF