A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by zug_zug on Saturday May 19, 2018 @06:35PM (#17110092)

We can't just jump to conclusions like this. We can't take a single story about a single bad editor and make blanket rules. You have to take a look at the whole dataset of people who make crusader efforts and then see if there's a pattern.

Even if there is, you then have to ask yourself if it's something that people will just learn and work-around.

I'm not disagreeing Cross was likely a net negative for wikipedia, but gut reactions to a single bad actor don't justify large theoretical changes to a largely-successful system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by twelvechairs on Saturday May 19, 2018 @09:32PM (#17110665)

> You have to take a look at the whole dataset of people who make crusader efforts and then see if there's a pattern.

You'll never see the whole dataset, and understand exactly the motivation behind every edit. All you can go on is anectodes like this and adjust as you can. Its a social system, not an exact piece of engineering science.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by chris_wot on Sunday May 20, 2018 @02:39AM (#17111545)

It’s not just this sort of editor who cause problems. There is a class of editor who makes no significant extra content via research or substantially flesh out article but who watch the edits as they come through.

As an example, see the user WWGB - if you review their contribution history you will not see any work done other than “review” the work of others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WWGB

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by OrganicMSG on Sunday May 20, 2018 @03:21PM (#17114328)

Not adjusting your overall rules to the actions of single bad actors can be fatal.

Single bad actors can sometimes wreak utter havoc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by alexandercrohde on Sunday May 20, 2018 @06:38PM (#17115124)

> Not adjusting your overall rules to the actions of single bad actors can be fatal.

Rash and systemic overreactions to bad actors can be fatal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by OrganicMSG on Monday May 21, 2018 @11:08PM (#17123450)

Also true.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by barrkel on Saturday May 19, 2018 @07:44PM (#17110359)

Single bad events are usually how we, as democracies, create new blanket rules. The events have to be bad enough to move people to action, and that normally means something out of the ordinary, which by definition is likely to be singular.

The blanket rules should be made with care, for sure, but your premise is wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by gowld on Saturday May 19, 2018 @09:32PM (#17110666)

The reality fact that it's a common mistake isn't a good reason to keep doing it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Wikipedia editor's long-running campaign by LMYahooTFY on Saturday May 19, 2018 @08:11PM (#17110456)

I didn't interpret the premise as it's not possible, I interpreted it as an argument for why blanket rules need considerably more justification.

[ Parent | on HN ]