Wikiquote talk:Vandalism

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Serious problems with this draft[edit]

This policy appears to be a copy of w:Wikipedia:Vandalism that Essjay copied over in January 2006 and minimally adapted to Wikiquote (I suspect primarily by changing "Wikipedia" to "Wikiquote"). While I appreciate his effort to set up policies we need, WP policies tend to be substantially (and unnecessarily, IMHO) more complex. I also have a specific problem with the vast number of undesirable actions that are branded "vandalism". Again, in my opinion, the term "vandalism" is used far too quickly and often in wikidom to brand editors as the last step before blocking them, instead of taking more time to try to sell them on the benefits of working with the community.

If people refuse to cooperate with policies, they are disrupting Wikiquote, not necessarily vandalizing it. Graffiti, mass page deletions, and nonsense are all vandalism; copyright violations, edit wars, talk-page warning removals, and general policy violations are uncooperative behavior. The first set are done by people who clearly have no intention of positively contributing to Wikiquote; the second often involves people (including many younger editors) who can be convinced to do good work. Labelling the latter "vandalism" often gives us an excuse to block and ignore people who could be brought over from the "dark side", and that hastiness actively harms Wikiquote by turning away many potential contributors.

I'd like to know if the community shares my opinion of this difference, which Wikipedia currently does not seem to acknowledge. If there is substantial agreement, I will try to revise our draft policies to make a clearer distinction between these activities while ensuring that we have the ability to stop non-vandalism harm as well. (Much of the latter is already in place. For example, people who routinely violate copyright are already being blocked for disruption and policy violations. We don't need to label them "vandals" as a shorthand for dismissing them.) Opinions and thoughts? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely concur that the list of so-called vandalizing behavior spelled out in this policy is a bit much. I have found myself quick to apply this label in the past, but I do now believe that there are times when acts that might not be correct are not necessarily done in a malicious manner, as the vandal label would imply. We as a community would be better served to educate such users rather than simply calling them vandals and blocking them. At the same time, there are times when a user is clearly acting in a vandalizing manner. Your efforts to clear up the distinction would be welcome. ~ UDScott 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I rather would like to delete it once; for us it sort of works as w:WP:BEANS, while they can see still on Wikipedia. There are many things we have not see on this project. I concur with Jeff and UDScott here. Calling someone as a vandal just because it was labeled so is simple, but not productive.
Labeling someone as a vandal, I would like point out the original vandals - a certain German tribe - would not have a malice toward Romans. They just raped a city and its wealth just for getting fortune. Destruction comes not always from malice: rather selfishness would be the key, if someone intentionally reject to comply with our consensus and norm, then we would hope they keep away. Blocking might be justified in such a situation, I think, since we have no way to improve than blocking, and we don't want to leave our project in endless disruption. --Aphaia 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)