| Revision as of 19:14, 28 February 2005 editNCdave (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,315 edits →''Anyone'', Can Edit. Threats and Possibilities.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:14, 28 February 2005 edit undoTheCustomOfLife (talk | contribs)17,352 edits →''Anyone'', Can Edit. Threats and Possibilities.Next edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material.] 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) | I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material.] 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Anyone looking at your edit history can see you're a controversial editor with an agenda, which is shown in articles such as ] and ]. ] 22:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:14, 28 February 2005
A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc.
Was this vandalism?
Template:WikipediaSister, including on the Main Page, was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the be bold rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? violet/riga (t) 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think the gesture was very nice, but I also think that they need to be told (gently) that breaking the 3RR is definitely frowned upon, and that we try to keep the templates to a minimum because there is not much real estate on the front page. I don't think it was vandalism. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, I don't think it was vandalism. There probably is a grey area for vandalism (e.g. link-spam), but I don't think this falls into it. This is just a Misplaced Pages editor doing something that they thought was fine, but which others disagreed with. Noel (talk) 11:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely not vandalism. Just a disagreement, probably made more difficult by a language barrier (i.e. English not being GerardM's first language.) "Vandalism" should only refer to deliberate defacement. GerardM clearly thought he was being reasonable, although from his comments I couldn't quite understand his rationale. Isomorphic 07:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anyone, Can Edit. Threats and Possibilities.
- There are many vague vandalism fears of the endless possibilities of Wikipedian vandalism. One of such fears could be "What if suddenly Misplaced Pages is discovered by people who don't realize it is created for them also? What if for example, a random High School kid decides that it is funny to post an obscenity on a seemingly scholarly website? What is interesting about this sort of fear and possibility is that, for example, that teenager would have the most to benefit from this site. Because what people underestimate is that EVERYONE has interests. Some people just don't realize they have the access to information to utilize them. In addition to the fact that person could realize they can have a voice and play an active role in editing biased statements about their demographic.
I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material.NCdave 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone looking at your edit history can see you're a controversial editor with an agenda, which is shown in articles such as Terri Schiavo and partial-birth abortion. Mike H 22:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)