On 04/04/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
This is worrying. We should probably try and keep an eye on these places.
Probably. Either they're just a lot of hot air, or serious. Anyone willing to be a double agent on one of these?
Why? It's just vandalism. Even if they block out the bulk of the normal RC patrol and CVU it'll get stopped quickly and undone. Yes, it'd be a bit of work to undo. But it would be far less work than trying to watch every place vandals might be planning something.
-Phil
Yeah - especially these days, the effort it takes to get one admin account is probably enough to dissuade almost anyone who wants to get one to do evil. Trying to get 10 of them would take an awful lot of effort.
Of course, trying to take out RC patrollers is probably one of the least efficient ways to do harm with an admin account.
Another interesting group: "Abolish Abstinence-Only Wikipedia Education" (97 members):
"Is anyone else tired of listening to clueless teachers bash Wikipedia? They complain that it can't be used for research because it's "not a source." They tell you that anyone can write whatever they want, so it must be wrong. I've even heard teachers say that "the author" makes stuff up.
Our schools say "Sex is bad, but we're going to tell you how to do it safely just in case." Why don't they apply the same policy to Wikipedia-- teaching students about the proper way to use it instead of indiscriminately banning it. These teachers are well aware that students are going to continue using Wikipedia anyway. I'm convinced that they just don't understand what Wikipedia is or how to use it."