4im is a big problem here, because the criteria for it is certainly
lowering. You see people dishing out 4im for even very minor things these
days, which isn't nice for the receiver.
So, to start off another topic, what are other people's criteria for dishing
out a 4im? ~Giggy
On 7/10/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
For a start, seeing someone spam and concluding
that the
person is a spammer is not prejudging, it's just judging.
I don't think that's quite correct. Everybody acts foolishly now and
then, but immediately judging them a fool is indeed prejudicial.
I've been a rabid anti-spammer since before the web existed, so these
days I have a pretty short fuse on the topic. But I still try hard to
keep in mind that the first time somebody spams, they rarely know that
it's bad.
I have talked to a shockingly large number of well-meaning small
business owners who believed the promotional flyer for the bulk mail
package they bought. Until they have done it repeatedly or after
warning, I don't think of them as spammers so much as people who have
spammed. They were just trying to promote their business in a way that
seemed reasonable given their lack of knowledge.
You don't
like threats? Should we not tell people that what they're doing will
get them blocked and just block them without warning?
I don't like threats. I do like explanations. I think the difference is
Wikipedia's secret sauce: the assumption of good faith.
Not being very friendly to spammers and
vandals is a small price to pay to get vandalism fixed promptly.
It depends on how you count the costs.
I think being actively unfriendly can get somebody's dander up. Some of
those people will become more persistent, or more sneaky. Some will
decide to get even. Many, because they still don't understand quite what
the problem is, will tell people how horrible Wikipedia is. Or just take
it out on their dogs.
On the other hand, people who feel they have been fairly treated (that
is, not as fools but as people who have unintentionally done something
foolish) have less incentive to take revenge. Perhaps now that they've
edited, they'll add something. Maybe they'll tell colleagues why they
shouldn't try to market themselves via Wikipedia. And it could they'll
even join us in tidying things up.
William
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That could be, but really, I think the templates serve that purpose fine
if used properly. Here's spam1:
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did
in Article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article>. Wikipedia is not a
mere directory of links
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_n…
nor should it be used for advertising or
promotion. Inappropriate links
include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to
web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract
visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links
guideline <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links> and
spam policies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam> for further
explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the
link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the
article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers> to learn
more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
That seems me to convey a clear message that we don't want spam, but
also serves to educate. Its tone certainly looks to me more like "Hey,
we don't allow this here, please don't do that" then "Knock it off you
($%*(#ing moron!"
There is a problem with people skipping directly to 3 or 4 level
warnings too quickly, which are much harsher in tone and are intended
for people who have ignored gentler warnings, and intended to convey
"Hey, we asked nicely, now stop it or out comes the banhammer." I'll
only give a 3 or 4 immediately in extreme, egregious cases. Often, a
test1, spam1, or whatever, is all it takes to get someone to stop.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l