Recently, I took a look at the forums and many editors were expressing their concern about the increasing vandalism. This is a extract taken from the article given below. http://forums.wikihow.com/discussion/5994/vandalism-in-a-higher-level/#Item_7
{{Quote|Shinako|When someone vandals the page, like adding “This is not a good web” , is that article shown with the vandalism or not? That means, only after patrolling that change, will it be shown to everyone or with vandalism itself? }} {{Quote|JuneDays|Yes, it is. But, once reverted, it will go back to the original version.}} So that means, when someone vandals a page and it is still unpatrolled, there is a higher chance that someone will see the page with the vandalism and be disappointed and they will never return to wikiHow (it’s about anons) So my suggestion is:
Whenever someone makes a change to a page, the page should not be shown with the change. Only after the page is patrolled, the page along with the change (or not) can be shown. This applies not only to vandalism but any kind of change. This would prevent vandalism from being shown on the articles. Is my suggestion good? Please post your comments below. I am Sorryif I have said something wrong. Shinako <3
system
2
Sorry but I will not agree. But I think you have the idea, it just needs some improvement. Maybe we should focus more on anonymous people because they vandalize a lot than registered users. I say we just limit their “freedom”. Or maybe when a anonymous user vandalize a page, he/she automatically get blocked. Maybe that’s too mean. I don’t know.
system
3
People always needs to be very careful and to take their time whilst patrolling. There’s no need to break up patrolling in technical ways just so that every article is crisp clear of everything. I’ve seen people patrol blanked out pages and when asked about it, they said that they were just simply tired and overlooked it. “Only after the page is patrolled, the page along with the change (or not) can be shown” – So, even if someone were to categorize a new page, it’s going to be hidden from everyone until it’s been “patrolled”? Who is to say a tip patrol addition is “correct” or not? I could be reverting more additions than a typical teenager because they would think the tips are “good”, while I believe differently. (Also, no, it’s not “all about the anons”, so please stop this topic)
I think it’s great that you have the willingness to help improve wikiHow. But since we’re a wiki, vandalism will neverbe completely eliminated or stopped. However, as I mentioned in that thread you linked to, we currently have many tools to combat vandalism (RC patrol, blocking, admin/patroller notice board). Not showing the page or “limiting the freedom of editors” is simply not the solution. Yes, it can be scary to see vandalism, but it can and will be caught. I feel the need to stress what I call the two assumption rules: 1. Do assume good faith. 2. Do not assume all anons are vandals.
Yes. This. We’ve all said that not every anonymous user is bad; a lot of good faith editors are anonymous too - It depends on the person. Also, with RC in the higher numbers (and will keep getting bigger as wikiHow gets more popular), those edits could be patrolled 4-5 days from when they are actually made. In some cases, are bad, like if you’re editing a template, saving an article from deletion, and small things like adding fa status to articles, or doing the wikiHow Herald. Like Maluniu said, there is no need to break up patrolling into smaller sections. On a personal note, I’m glad you guys are wanting to help the quality of wikiHow (which is what we all want), however, the system we have right now is doing pretty well. (; June Days P.S. If a bad edit is patrolled by an inexperienced editor, that puts you back to square 1, with that edit being reverted, then, having to have a patroller patrol it, just to get it back to an original version. It short, it makes more work than it is worth. (;
@Jasmine
, Yes, but we are a wiki so there is no chance of limiting their freedom and as far as the blocking is concerned, they would never come back to wikiHow. As said in the link, they are just testing our patience. @Maluniu
, I never said it was all anons. I agree with you.The tips patrol can’t be judged most of the time. I am sorry I mentioned anons there. I was about to say ‘everyone’. @IIIneedaSaviour
, I hope at most times it will be caught. I know the 2 rules and I never meant that all Anons are Vandals. I appreciate that more and more anons are visiting us. I don’t know if anybody differ from the thoughts, so I hope this discussion can still be kept openShinako <3
@June
I respect your opinion (just saw yours after posting mine, LOL)
system
8
I posted on another thread about the issue of what appears to be an increase in vandalism, but here are a few things I have noticed in the two or three hundred edits I have patrolled. Anonymous editors make a lot of good edits, some with a level of expertise in complicated, technical, or otherwise difficult topics that are hard to deal with, and they often do the small things like fixing grammar errors, spelling, or other problems I would miss. I give more thumbs ups to anonymous editors for these contributions than I do to registered users on many days. There are certain times vandalism seems to peak, like weekend evenings and holidays, when kids are more likely to have access to the internet. I don’t view detailed stats on page view/website traffic, but I am sure the vandalism goes up (and down) with peaks of readership. Spam edits and spam article posts seem to come in very late at night or in the early morning most often, and that makes me suspect their source might not be in the same time zone I live in. I will block a registered user for a longer period and more quickly than an anonymous user, since the fact they created an account and then proceeded to vandalize pages causes me to suspect they are more deliberate than a “drive by” anonymous user who is just testing the site to see how it works. It is helpful to remember that pages are live online all of the time, but page visit rates reflect how popular the content is at any given instance, especially featured articles, so there is the possibility a vandalism can remain on a page for some time without anyone ever visiting the page. Keeping featured articles on our collective patrol radar helps to clear vandalism on these more frequently visited pages more quickly. I also urge people to use the quickedit tool as you are patrolling to tweak text, make corrections, and fix formatting problems when you see them. It doesn’t take long to fix a tip, rather than rolling it back for a technical problem like spelling, IF the tip is worth while, and not redundant with other parts of the page. Check the edit history of articles occasionally when you are rolling back an edit to a previous anonymous user. You might find a previous vandalism that was overlooked earlier, you never know.
Thank you for your helpful advice,Bob! That was very nice of you to take some time and advice.
Hibou8
10
I think that a way to make vandalism appear for a shorter amount of time could be to either: 1. Make a new tool like RC patrol, but that only shows edits that have certain words in them (such as bad words, combinations of words commonly seen in vandalism, and where people have deleted a large part of an article.) There would be two buttons. One called “speedy delete” for clear vandalism, and one to RC patrol a good one. 2. Make the edits discussed in the previous idea appear at the beginning of RC patrol.
It seems good to me, @Hibou8
! Let’s see what other people think… You are welcome to leave your opinion
maybe they should block anonymous users who continue to vandalize. One edit is fine, but if they *keep* doing it and get warned enough, they should be blocked. Just my opinion.
This is taken from @LoisWade
’s comment on a different topic discussing vandalism: You see, the fun of vandalizing lies in the reaction of the patrollers and in getting attention. It doesn’t seem to matter if the attention they get is negative or positive… they do it for the attention. Getting tougher with a deliberate vandal? Only makes them keener to get around you, to best you, to laugh in your face over it. it’s a vicious cycle… they edit… you fuss… they edit more… you fuss more… and frankly? Not many of us want to volunteer to be a hammer wielding anti-vandalism Nazi! For that matter? I’m not at all certain we’d want to hang around much with hammer wielding anti vandalism Nazi’s if they showed up on the site! However! When we assume good faith, we react differently. We react with the assumption that anything a newbie has done has been with the intention of helping. We coach instead of crushing. The accidental vandals learn how to edit properly and are impressed with how fun it is to edit here and make friends … The deliberate vandals ALSO get coached… but the discussion doesn’t escalate into the attention garnering battle they were hoping for and they eventually realize they’re being a bit silly, trying to mess up a good thing where all these helpful friendly folks are working on a shared goal. I’ve seen a good number of them change their ways and become helpful editors over time. It’s not a quick process… but it’s a better process… with longer lasting results and less stress on you and I as we deal with these folks. So, I don’t support your opinion,Adelaide…But,Thanks for posting here!
@Hibou8
I wonder if you agree with me
system
15
This discussion has been a recurring one since even before I started editing on the site 5 years or so ago. A bit of history might be in order… We used to be QUITE harsh with vandals. We had a plethora of sternly worded warnings, a system of tracking how many warnings a user had gotten before we would ban them, etc etc. There were a couple of problems with this: 1 - It was pretty tedious to keep up with everyone. 2 - We were doing “volunteer” work that mainly consisted of being harsh and assuming the worst of others. This made for a rather toxic atmosphere for newcomers as well as for those of us who were sticking around. 3 - It DID NOT WORK. Vandals openly mocked our patrolling efforts. We would deal with vandals working around our efforts, getting more and more clever in their efforts to disrupt and annoy. It was sort of like wrestling with a pig. You both got dirty? and the _pig_ loved it!!! So the community chose to take another approach. We went softcore. We chose to approach every editor with the assumption that they were here with good intentions. This approach did several things for us: 1 - It was a lot more pleasant to enact. 2 - Those vandalizing by accident learned better… and loved hanging around our friendly and helpful site. 3 - Those vandalizing on purpose had their primary reward removed. They no longer got notoriety or attention. Instead, they got a mildly worded bit of advice with offer of help learning how to do stuff right. The net result was that we ended up with MORE editors, doing MORE work, being MORE helpful, and with a LOT LESS stress all around. While I agree that milder methods are not as viscerally satisfying in the short term, I must say that,in the longer view, they bring us more editors, more good edits, and more willing, friendly, cheerful, helpful volunteers to grow our site with.
I totally agree with you, @LoisWade42
! You are right!
Hinni
19
Now I’ve read the whole discussion I don’t agree with what I previously said. Maybe after a certain number of bad edits they could get a big warning and if they continued a ban. CHEERS
@vandalism
i’ll stop you no matter what
