Misplaced Pages

Talk:Vandalism on : Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:24, 30 October 2018 editJosve05a (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,019 edits →Untitled← Previous edit Revision as of 14:03, 5 November 2018 edit undoEsprit15d (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,238 edits added press templateNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages |class=C |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Misplaced Pages |class=C |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime |class=C |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Crime |class=C |importance=Low}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Press | subject = | author = APRIL GLASER and WILL OREMUS | title = Editing the Internet’s Second Screen: How Misplaced Pages deals with vandals, harassers, false news, and its diversity problem | org = | url = https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/wikipedia-wikimedia-katherine-maher-interview.html | date = October 9, 2018 | quote = | archiveurl = | archivedate = | accessdate = }}


==Consequences of vandalism== ==Consequences of vandalism==

Revision as of 14:03, 5 November 2018

ClueBot NG was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 July 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Vandalism on Misplaced Pages. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis has been mentioned by a media organization:

Consequences of vandalism

"On the June 6, 2011 episode of "The Colbert Report", comedian Stephen Colbert suggested that all of his viewers vandalize the Misplaced Pages page for bell (instrument) and add the fragment "Used by Paul Revere to warn the British that hey, you're not going to succeed in taking our guns. USA!! USA!!". This was humorously treated as factual in a response by Sarah Palin on June 2, 2011 about what she took away from her visit to Boston. "

Are these dates mixed up or was this joke made after Sarah palin made the comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidit1 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was a reference to the Sarah Palin comment, but I don't remember for sure. wintermute (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

2006 and 2007

It seems that these were the years when vandals were most active. Do statistics support it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.186.3.59 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A message for anyone who might want to get rid of the vandalism template

I realize that since this is an article in namespace zero, and it does concern Misplaced Pages itself, and is able to exist with out being a wp:cross-namespace redirect, it's gone pretty far down the line that most articles about Misplaced Pages haven't. I'm guessing that any simple reader reading this article who is not an editor will come along and read this article (although the odds are slim) and be able to know perfectly well what "vandalism" means in the Misplaced Pages department. I mean, take a look at vandalism. You see a tag to WP:VANDALISM but you don't see one yo this article. And don't get me wrong: I wouldn't point out that this article should be deleted because it is a sort of "clone" of WP:VANDALISM, because I believe that it is important to tell the difference between an article and a policy or guideline.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographical nature

Vandalism in Misplaced Pages is a function of the region. You can see lot of vandalism in developing-country-related-articles, whereas less in other nation related articles...

Can I get citations for this from anywhere? (Pepper Black (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC))

And articles of current importance. extra999 (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How does it affect Misplaced Pages?

This article should state how quickly vandalism is reverted, an estimate of how many articles it affects, and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please change "and/ore" to "and/or." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.116.140 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Irony

Anyone else find it ironic that this article is semi-protected? (won't be true after April 3, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.179.20 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The vandals apparently do. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 19:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. You don't understand the meaning of irony. How ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:180:454:7851:1974:f77f:6726 (talk • contribs) 21:37, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

ISBN

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ISBN 10:0-596-51616-2 is incorrect, please remove "10:" from it as it means ISBN-10.

Done. There was also a typo in the ISBN (changed to 51516). --ElHef (Meep?) 18:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Image

Right now, the article uses an image (File:Misplaced Pages vandalism.svg) of a page being edited. This is not what is relevant to most readers (I presume most readers to not edit the wiki), so I wonder if it would be better to use an image of an article that has been vandalized (i.e., not an image of a diff). There are ways this could be done innocuously--take a screenshot of a preview, take a screenshot of the permalink of that same diff, do it on an article copy in userspace. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screenshot of the same edit with the vandalized text highlighted, if anyone else agrees. It might need to be cropped, so that the vandalized text is more noticeable.

--SamX‧☎‧✎ 22:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --SamX‧☎‧✎ 00:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarkeesian

Well, if it's really necessary to keep the exact number of people who vandalized her page, let's at least try to remove needless speculation about the vandalizing of her page being somehow misogynistic (or, for that matter, a "campaign"), shall we? Haltendehand (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't see hateful, misogynist trolling as a big deal, but the reliable sources used in this section say otherwise. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Source 21 (which is the only "reliable source" used for any of the content I edited) is a blog (a.k.a. not a particularly reliable source), which contains such POV gems as, among others: "Even if you don't like the idea - or don't believe that women are poorly represented in games (in which case, you would be wrong)". Instead, I suggest we take an actual reliable source (such as this Wired article, and delete the POV stuff about the vandalism being a "campaign" and "misogynist".

Typo

"Locking articles so only established users, or in some cases only administrators, can edit them. Semi-protectedarticles are those that..." There is a missing space after semi-protected.

fixed, thanks for bringing it to our attention. GB fan 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Anita Sarkesian and The Oatmeal

Two suggestions:

  1. Remove or rework the section on Anita Sarkesian. It's written like an advertisement for her purpose and her blog and seems to insult the vandals by calling them misogynists, implying that the issue was sexism and not that Anita's project had faults which Misplaced Pages ended up being used as a conduit for expression.
  2. Add in a section for Douchebag, more specifically, The Oatmeal's encouragement of vandalizing the article to disparage Thomas Edison.

Thanks, 68.1.76.211 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding #1...In other words, she was "asking for it" ? No, I think we'll pass on your decidedly misogynist spin on the affair. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Who's "we"? Are you a mental collective or something? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Cut it out with persecution complexes, I just want dumb shit removed from the article. 68.1.76.211 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is an accurate and sourced description of what actually happened. It will not be removed. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 04:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My missing link

I posted an external link twice and have been reverted twice by user Zzuuzz. I don't have time to get into an edit war (and to be honest, I don't have patience to wade through all the external-link-Wiki-regulations), so I'm just going to post it here and let the chips fall where they may.

Citation needed tag needed

The line "This is currently unlikely to be the case, considering the reliability and speed of anti-vandal bots and recent changes patrollers" definitely needs a citation needed tag. I came to this article because recently I am constantly finding little bits of surreptitious vandalism and reverting/undoing it, and it's usually not the old-style blatant vandalism, but damages to an article's formatting or sneaking in very small (i.e., a word or two), but very wrong, science. I know this wouldn't be at first assumed to be vandalism, but it's very frequently accompanied with a misleading edit summary (e.g., "fixing typo"). I know "AGF" and all, but the frequency of these problems in science articles seems in my sampling (very unscientific sampling, that is) to be increasing. Hence I really think this line needs a cite, or something to justify it. It almost seems like there's a small army of anons and single-edit users now that have figured out blatant vandalism won't stand and so want to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia with a thousand needles. 142.25.33.107 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Blocking is not considered to be a punitive action on Misplaced Pages" needs a rephrase to be more objective. I don't know for sure but maybe, "The consensus position of Misplaced Pages editors is that blocking is not a punitive action." Anyone could "consider" it however they wish; if someone is blocked and they feel it's punitive, then it's considered a punitive action by someone (and I'm sure a lot of people have felt that way). 142.25.33.107 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the statement needs a citation tag, since it doesn't ring true to me, either. I also consider that it may become outdated as "vandalism technology" evolves in the anti-vandalism arms race. As well as the "fiddle vandalism" you note, I've recently seen evidence (from sources outside of Misplaced Pages) of crowd sourced vandalism (see "dank meme" , and "hypothetical" vandalism , , ). Much like "media sourced" vandalism (see Stephen Colbert: here, and here), instead of a concentrated effort by a small cabal of meat-puppets, the vandalism arises through social media among a loose group of people where it becomes a "thing" within their community. Willondon (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah; the more I look into this vandalism, the more complicated I realize it is. Stephen Colbert was one part I knew about long ago, but it just seems to get worse....
70.67.150.101 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I've amended both sentences mentioned by the OP to take account of the concerns expressed here.  —SMALLJIM  17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Add the Jontron dispute!

Jonathan Jafari or Jontron was shown in his 2016 Christmas Special editing the page for The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause to show the plot as "Tim Allen and Martin Short get some serious $$$$$$$$$$$$ for XMAS." Many people followed suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingasopera (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This should be called Internet Vandalism

Anyone can vandalize any Wiki page, even off Misplaced Pages, including Wikia. So why not rename the title to Internet Vandalism? UpsandDowns1234 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The article would need a fundamental rewrite if it was retitled "Internet vandalism". The article as it is written is specifically about vandalism on Misplaced Pages. It does not discuss any vandalism outside of Misplaced Pages. ~ GB fan 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Inactive discussion that has no chance of succeeding anyway. See also WP:Cross-namespace redirects.— pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shouldn't we merge this page with Misplaced Pages:Vandalism? They're practically both the same! RullRatbwan (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose They're different namespaces, different intended audiences and thus slightly different content. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose, and I'm fairly certain it's prohibited by policy. Any similarity is just a coincidence. This page is an encyclopedia article, the other is a project management page. Murph9000 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge

I have merged ClueBot NG into this article, following consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groiglery1217 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017 on ClueBot NG

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have found a couple of errors in the newly-created section named "ClueBot NG". After saying the words "Cobi Carter in 2010", there should be a space between the comma and the opening bracket. After that, the word 'Cluebot' should be changed to 'ClueBot', the proper name of the old ClueBot before the NG version took over. At refs 18 and 19, the full stop should be before the two tags not after them.
That's the mistakes I have found. Cheers, 86.169.53.193 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I will never vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmMakers20330 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
197.30.223.251 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages - what about full protection?

This article says that Misplaced Pages is an open encyclopeadia that anybody can edit and then goes on to say that this is with the exception of articles that are semi-protected. Surely, this exception also applies to articles that are fully protected, i.e. sections of Misplaced Pages that only administrators are allowed to edit. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ajit Pai page vandalism

When the news about net neutrality was released, some people vandalized this page. Should we add this issue to the page, discuss it if you like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ajit_Pai&diff=prev&oldid=790192200 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ajit_Pai&diff=next&oldid=811401847 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaggum13 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Swaggum13 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Could you provide a third-party source which discusses this vandalism? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Kerchoo is life

Kerchoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1F60:1600:4161:6E29:1D39:35 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo near the end of the current article. Dana Boente's name is misspelled as "Dana J. Botne". Could someone with editing permissions correct the typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.35.161 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

More irony

It'd be great to fix this: "The challenge from vandalism in Misplaced Pages was once characterized by the Former Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Robert McHenry ". One of the citations is a bad link (which supports the point I'm making here), the other is certainly not about vandalism. McHenry was almost certainly talking about the crowd-sourced nature of Misplaced Pages, and not vandalism specifically. Misplaced Pages is a product of the normal distribution of its contributors. These are not the kind of professional, correctness-obsessed, writers of a reputable encyclopedia such as the Britannica. Misplaced Pages is not reputable; it's similar to a public restroom in exactly the ways McHenry describes it. Hence, it is to be expected that this topic (and every other one here) contains errors and omissions and as is evident it does (and they do). That's the point McHenry is making. Vandalism is malicious degradation of the Misplaced Pages corpus; errors introduced in the ordinary course of business are degradations resulting from incompetence. And, as a general rule of thumb, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be feasibly attributed to incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80e8:a:e917:3fb1:b310:e45a (talk • contribs)

Federal crime

I would like to propose that it be made a federal crime to vandalize Misplaced Pages and similar wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:180:454:7851:1974:f77f:6726 (talk • contribs) 21:37, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

WP:Village Pump. PrussianOwl (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

WikipediA allows self-promoting articles by individuals making claims to be an company or LLC. The State Corporation for a state can clearly show that company is "Not in Good Standing" for around a decade. Yet, any attempt to correct the self promoting article for a company has complains of Vandalism. We use for example www.Mechjock.com in a article to show the "company headquarters" State Corporation Commission status as proof WikipediA doesn't care about citations, accuracy or public concern. WikipediA should set a clear policy that any article related to a company, LLC or business should cite the State's Corporation Commissions Standing or status. It would protect from fake post that some entity is the "official" representative. It would also promote stronger copyright enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.140.12 (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2018

Categories: