On 10/19/05, Martin Richards <Martin(a)velocitymanager.com> wrote:
From: "Tony Sidaway"
Show me some old vandalism.
Well I just reverted a 15 day old 3/4 page blank of [[Complement good]]. Let
me guess, it doesnt count as vandalism because it might have been a good
faith blanking?
Not plausible. Looks like an obvious case of vandalism to me.
(On Bill Gates)
Yes. The point
is, that isn't vandalism.
Yeah, but it doesnt matter what you label it, an edit either makes wikipedia
better or worse.
Well we're talking about vandalism, here, not sloppy editing.
Specifically the suggestion further up the thread was that we needed
to tackle vandalism because it's so serious, and you said "This is a
project to make the best encyclopedia ever, policy and procedure
should evolve as our problems evolve, and vandalim is one of the biggest
problems, it discredits us, wastes our time, and puts off good users. The
least we could do is be able to block vandals properly when they do surface."
Personally I think that bad writing and driving away newcomers are the
two worst problems of the project. The former can be fixed over time
with effort. The latter will kill us if we keep it up. Compared to
those, vandalism doesn't even count as a blip on the radar screen.