Vandalism and editor decline

[DanMurphy]

About 5 hours ago a template (the only one probably on my watchlist) was edited by an ip to say that "named person performs a particular sexual act." That inserted the claim in the over 200 articles that contain that template. It has undoubtedly been seen many times since.

It's clearly well past the time when a lot of things need to be, at minimum, permanently semi-protected (that is, making it impossible to edit them without a Wikipedia account). Yet they still resist -- in fact insist there is no real problem at all, since "vandalism" is quickly caught and corrected.

This is not a case involving any subtlety or requiring any expertise on the part of the reader to recognize it for what it is.

[Malleus]

You see lots of crazy headline numbers, but the truth is that the number of active Wikipedia editors is now hovering around the 3000 mark, and falling. There's a limit to what that number of editors can do, but no recognition by the powers that be of Wikipedia's fundamental problems that are driving editors away. And ultimately of course problems such as you describe will drive readers away as well.

[DanMurphy]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

[Malleus]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.

[Cla68]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.

Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.

[Malleus]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.

Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.

I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that.

[The Devil's Advocate]

I think he means that by letting these individual instances fester it eventually compels the powers that be to fix the underlying structural problems that allow them to occur. Personally, I don't ascribe to that type of attitude.

[lilburne]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.

The article in question references a king (not Edward III) along with a date that is circa the Battle of Crecy. It is unclear whether it is a mix up with the king or the date. If I were to guess I'd say the date is wrong, but who knows without re-examining the source. Being that it got past FA review, and the editors involved are experienced, it could even be that the source was wrong, rather than the editors messing it up. However, it got past FA review without anyone questioning the anachronism, and remains there several years later. The QC of the pedia is sadly lacking even when it comes to the 'best of the best'.

[Malleus]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.

The article in question references a king (not Edward III) along with a date that is circa the Battle of Crecy. It is unclear whether it is a mix up with the king or the date. If I were to guess I'd say the date is wrong, but who knows without re-examining the source. Being that it got past FA review, and the editors involved are experienced, it could even be that the source was wrong, rather than the editors messing it up. However, it got past FA review without anyone questioning the anachronism, and remains there several years later. The QC of the pedia is sadly lacking even when it comes to the 'best of the best'.

It is, and hardly likely to get any better. There's an obvious limit as to what 3000 editors can do, especially as about 600 of them are administrators and do very little in terms of content.

[Randy from Boise]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

More vandalism by an IP editor. What a huge, huge surprise.

Time to implement Sign-In-To-Edit...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.

Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.

I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that.

+1

Wikipedia will go away if and only if something comes along that is also free and better...

RfB

[lilburne]

Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.

Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.

I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that.

+1

Wikipedia will go away if and only if something comes along that is also free and better...

RfB

*chortle* The site has has millions of articles to maintain, a number that far exceeds the capabilities of its regular editors, and the regular community has reached the xenophobia stage in its development. It is now a gated community that is well on the way to isolating itself from the real world.

[roger_pearse]

You see lots of crazy headline numbers, but the truth is that the number of active Wikipedia editors is now hovering around the 3000 mark, and falling. There's a limit to what that number of editors can do, but no recognition by the powers that be of Wikipedia's fundamental problems that are driving editors away. And ultimately of course problems such as you describe will drive readers away as well.

Particularly when most of those 3000 editors are not actually contributors.

But where does that number come from? (interest)

[Malleus]

You see lots of crazy headline numbers, but the truth is that the number of active Wikipedia editors is now hovering around the 3000 mark, and falling. There's a limit to what that number of editors can do, but no recognition by the powers that be of Wikipedia's fundamental problems that are driving editors away. And ultimately of course problems such as you describe will drive readers away as well.

Particularly when most of those 3000 editors are not actually contributors.

But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.

[thekohser]

But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

I know it's hard for Wikipediots to fathom, but most people have never edited Wikipedia. Probably 95% of people in the United States have not made more than 5 edits ever to Wikipedia.

[isaan]

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

Same goes for many of the science articles. Often, some of the most interesting parts of articles which are not just bland rehashes of better material found elsewhere were apparently written by graduate students who disappear immediately afterwards.

Sorry Malleus, you are way too mired in the dreck to have an independent opinion about "editors" to your web site.

[Malleus]

But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

I know it's hard for Wikipediots to fathom, but most people have never edited Wikipedia. Probably 95% of people in the United States have not made more than 5 edits ever to Wikipedia.

An average of a little over three edits a day is an addiction? On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy, as your stats seem to suggest that you've made an average of 193 edits per month since you registered here. I agree with you about the articles on business though. My point was quite simply that the headline number of almost 800,000 registered editors gives the wrong impression, and reinforces the ridiculous "crowd sourcing" hypothesis. It also puts the number of administrators into some kind of context. Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.

[Malleus]

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

Same goes for many of the science articles. Often, some of the most interesting parts of articles which are not just bland rehashes of better material found elsewhere were apparently written by graduate students who disappear immediately afterwards.

Sorry Malleus, you are way too mired in the dreck to have an independent opinion about "editors" to your web site.

No need for you to apologise, as I'm quite certain you've never seen my web site.

[Mason]

My point was quite simply that the headline number of almost 800,000 registered editors gives the wrong impression...

Quite. Whenever someone cites number of registered editors, the first thing I wonder is "are you counting all the sockpuppets as separate editors?"

[lilburne]

Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.

Its only a slightly bigger ratio than than the 1:6 lobbyists to congress-critters that Google employees.

[EricBarbour]

No need for you to apologise, as I'm quite certain you've never seen my web site.

I have, and

Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.

The deep irony of this situation is not lost on me. Even the Soviet gulags, at their peak, didn't have such a massive guard-to-inmate ratio. Everytime I see "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" again, I want to complain to the Better Business Bureau. But (of course) no one can do anything about it.

[Tippi Hadron]

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

Same goes for many of the science articles. Often, some of the most interesting parts of articles which are not just bland rehashes of better material found elsewhere were apparently written by graduate students who disappear immediately afterwards.

Sorry Malleus, you are way too mired in the dreck to have an independent opinion about "editors" to your web site.

No need for you to apologise, as I'm quite certain you've never seen my web site.

We get it, Malleus. Ma! Lice?, Malice Aforethought? (don't kid yourself), Ma Cunt? Ma Twat? Ma Mighty Yawn? Ma--Ladies, I don't ever get lucky with the likes of you, ever, so I might as well resort to the kind of foul language that references your sexay parts? You know, those lady parts that will forever be out of reach to the likes of me?

Eventually, without fail, you, Malleus, will manage to turn every thread into a reflection of the perceived glory of YOU, YOU, YOU and ONLY YOU and your achievements on WP.

I never thought I'd feel the need to set up an Ignore list on here, but, on the positive side, you and the genuinely nasty, manipulative and deluded piece of "art" that is Mathsick now have a room full of mirrors in which to worship each other's massive, pointless egos.

Empty vessels do make the most noise after all.

[Malleus]

You clearly don't get anything at all, so I fail to see why you try to pretend otherwise.

[thekohser]

On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

[Malleus]

On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?

[Randy from Boise]

But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

I know it's hard for Wikipediots to fathom, but most people have never edited Wikipedia. Probably 95% of people in the United States have not made more than 5 edits ever to Wikipedia.

An average of a little over three edits a day is an addiction? On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy, as your stats seem to suggest that you've made an average of 193 edits per month since you registered here. I agree with you about the articles on business though. My point was quite simply that the headline number of almost 800,000 registered editors gives the wrong impression, and reinforces the ridiculous "crowd sourcing" hypothesis. It also puts the number of administrators into some kind of context. Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.

Touché!

Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

RfB

[Zoloft]

On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?

I may not be an addict here, but I'm a glutton for punishment if that helps at all.

[Hex]

Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

I'm pretty sure sports fans must spend more time than that, watching games and reading about their teams in the newspaper or wherever.

[thekohser]

Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

I'm pretty sure sports fans must spend more time than that, watching games and reading about their teams in the newspaper or wherever.

Both of which are passive activities. Editing Wikipedia is far more active than merely absorbing entertainment content through your eyeballs and ears.

On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?

If I went to the trouble of buying a domain name and helping to establish a web community, doesn't it stand to reason that I should be actively involved in its day-to-day activity and content? Am I addicted? I would say "yes". I would feel dependency consequences, for example, if this site went down for more than a day or two. I'm able to admit that, easily. But I find it interesting how 100+ edits-per-month Wikipedians have such difficulty making a similar admission.

[Malleus]

If I went to the trouble of buying a domain name and helping to establish a web community, doesn't it stand to reason that I should be actively involved in its day-to-day activity and content? Am I addicted? I would say "yes". I would feel dependency consequences, for example, if this site went down for more than a day or two. I'm able to admit that, easily. But I find it interesting how 100+ edits-per-month Wikipedians have such difficulty making a similar admission.

You distort the meaning of the word "addiction" beyond all credibility. I get it that you don't like anyone who contributes to Wikipedia without being paid for it, as that undermines your business model, now can we please move on?

[Randy from Boise]

Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

I'm pretty sure sports fans must spend more time than that, watching games and reading about their teams in the newspaper or wherever.

Both of which are passive activities. Editing Wikipedia is far more active than merely absorbing entertainment content through your eyeballs and ears.

On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?

If I went to the trouble of buying a domain name and helping to establish a web community, doesn't it stand to reason that I should be actively involved in its day-to-day activity and content? Am I addicted? I would say "yes". I would feel dependency consequences, for example, if this site went down for more than a day or two. I'm able to admit that, easily. But I find it interesting how 100+ edits-per-month Wikipedians have such difficulty making a similar admission.

My dispute is that 100/mo. is some sort of magic "addiction" line, as you intimate.

RfB

[thekohser]

My dispute is that 100/mo. is some sort of magic "addiction" line, as you intimate.

RfB

Most of Wikipedia is "magic". How does Silver Seren become someone that Jimbo "trusts"?

Magic.

How does Jayen466 go from being a WikiLove barnstar recipient from the Sole Flounder, to "Please stay off my talk page, I've had enough of you"?

Magic.

Why do you have such a problem with me using a little of my own magic to define an addiction?

You distort the meaning of the word "addiction" beyond all credibility. I get it that you don't like anyone who contributes to Wikipedia without being paid for it, as that undermines your business model, now can we please move on?

You have a woeful understanding of my "business model". My business model is to come into Comcast each weekday and earn a paycheck. I really don't give a crap whether there are 150,000 volunteer editors of Wikipedia, or 15 million. I also don't really give a crap whether there are 15 paid editors of Wikipedia, or 15,000.

There are numerous active volunteer contributors to Wikipedia whom I like.

So, now that I've set the record straight, I would say "yes", we can please move on.



P.S. For those who really want to know, I probably execute about 15 to 20 edits per month on Wikipedia. However, that's just a small portion of the time I spend reviewing Wikipedia, criticizing its Foundation management, performing investigative journalism about Wikipedia, authoring paid articles offline, etc.

P.P.S. If you guys are so un-addicted to Wikipedia, please take a 7 day break from it, beginning now. It shouldn't be a problem, right?

[thekohser]

Most of Wikipedia is "magic". How does Silver Seren become someone that Jimbo "trusts"?

The magic continues. Now, Silver Seren is openly mocked by Jimbo.

[Zoloft]

It's worth quoting for the sheer nastiness:

* * So you combined a number of personal attacks with insults with statements clearly showing that you are incredibly biased and should have nothing to do with WP:WPEW, does that about cover it? You've more or less shown that you have no place editing Wikipedia (or at least this topic area), because you are completely incapable of being a neutral editor within it. Silverseren C 2:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* He spoke the truth. Your efforts at helping with the corruption of Wikipedia are well noted by many.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 2:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* Really, Jimbo? That's surprising, coming from you, considering i've contributed to people actually following your Bright Line rule. I've actually organized a process that enables better interaction between Wikipedia and companies in a manner that lessen the capabilities of groups like Wiki-PR. I've actually made an effort to make a difference, to make our coverage of such subjects more neutral and more comprehensive. Rather than let them fall into a derogatory mess. Silverseren C 3:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* Or is it more that i'm the one that has pioneered the process? I'm the one that accomplished it, not you? That i've made you less involved and less important to Wikipedia overall because of it because you aren't necessary anymore as an intermediary between us and companies?Silverseren C  3:12 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* Right, sure. Knock yourself out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 4:04 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)