| Revision as of 20:56, 18 June 2006 view sourceCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 editsm Reverted edits by 63.23.82.33 (talk) to last version by Cyde← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:22, 18 June 2006 view source 206.170.104.66 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| WIKIPEDIA’S POLICY: | |||
| ] | |||
| ”Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot. | |||
| {{bot|Cyde}} | |||
| Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. | |||
| I am running the same software as ]. See ] for the description and authorization of the bot. | |||
| Committing vandalism is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others. | |||
| A 2002 study by IBM found that most vandalism on the English Misplaced Pages is reverted within five minutes (see official results); however, vandals persist as a problem for all users, and it is a good idea when editing an article to check its recent history to see if recent vandalism has gone unnoticed — even if the last update was more than five minutes prior. | |||
| Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism. | |||
| MY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: | |||
| UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OF THE WIKIPEDIA USERS SEEM TO THINK THAT WIKIPEDIA IS THEIR OWN PERSONAL WEBSITE, AND ARE COMPLETELY INTOLERANT OF ANY CHANGES TO ANY ARTICLES. EVEN MINOR INFUSIONS OF MATERIAL ARE QUICKLY ERASED BY AN ARMY OF ANGRY WIKIPEDIAN DEGENERATES WHO ARE TRYING TO PERSONALLY COMANDEER AND DOMINATE THE SITE, REVERTING ANY ADJUSTED ARTICLE BACK TO THEIR OWN LOUSY VERSIONS. MOST ‘VANDALISM’ IS NOT VANDALISM AT ALL, BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE WIKIPEDIA EDITS. | |||
| THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT THAT BEARS REPEATING: MOST ‘VANDALISM’ IS NOT VANDALISM AT ALL, BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE WIKIPEDIA EDITS. | |||
| AND AGAIN, BECAUSE WIKIPEDIANS ARE EXTREMELY STUPID: MOST ‘VANDALISM’ IS NOT VANDALISM AT ALL, BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE WIKIPEDIA EDITS. | |||
| NEVERTHELESS, THE SUPREME LOSERS WHO DON”T WANT THEIR MATERIAL TOUCHED LABEL THESE EDITS ‘VANDALISM’ AND REMOVE THE WORK, RETURNING IT TO THEIR CRAP. HOW AMAZING IT IS THAT THEY ARE SO IMBECILIC THAT THEY CANNOT COMPREHEND THE CONCEPT BEHIND WIKIPEDIA, AND SELFISHLY SEEK TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS!!! WHAT DEGENERATE SCUM THESE WIKIPEDIAN MORONS ARE!!! | |||
Revision as of 21:22, 18 June 2006
WIKIPEDIA’S POLICY:
”Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
Committing vandalism is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.
A 2002 study by IBM found that most vandalism on the English Misplaced Pages is reverted within five minutes (see official results); however, vandals persist as a problem for all users, and it is a good idea when editing an article to check its recent history to see if recent vandalism has gone unnoticed — even if the last update was more than five minutes prior.
Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism.
MY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OF THE WIKIPEDIA USERS SEEM TO THINK THAT WIKIPEDIA IS THEIR OWN PERSONAL WEBSITE, AND ARE COMPLETELY INTOLERANT OF ANY CHANGES TO ANY ARTICLES. EVEN MINOR INFUSIONS OF MATERIAL ARE QUICKLY ERASED BY AN ARMY OF ANGRY WIKIPEDIAN DEGENERATES WHO ARE TRYING TO PERSONALLY COMANDEER AND DOMINATE THE SITE, REVERTING ANY ADJUSTED ARTICLE BACK TO THEIR OWN LOUSY VERSIONS. MOST ‘VANDALISM’ IS NOT VANDALISM AT ALL, BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE WIKIPEDIA EDITS.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT THAT BEARS REPEATING: MOST ‘VANDALISM’ IS NOT VANDALISM AT ALL, BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE WIKIPEDIA EDITS.
AND AGAIN, BECAUSE WIKIPEDIANS ARE EXTREMELY STUPID: MOST ‘VANDALISM’ IS NOT VANDALISM AT ALL, BUT RATHER LEGITIMATE WIKIPEDIA EDITS.
NEVERTHELESS, THE SUPREME LOSERS WHO DON”T WANT THEIR MATERIAL TOUCHED LABEL THESE EDITS ‘VANDALISM’ AND REMOVE THE WORK, RETURNING IT TO THEIR CRAP. HOW AMAZING IT IS THAT THEY ARE SO IMBECILIC THAT THEY CANNOT COMPREHEND THE CONCEPT BEHIND WIKIPEDIA, AND SELFISHLY SEEK TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS!!! WHAT DEGENERATE SCUM THESE WIKIPEDIAN MORONS ARE!!!