3 ms·

List of long time abusers of Wikipedia

• chrisjj 3y ago
  Sad to see WP equating abuse with vandalism.
  • jfengel 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on that? A lot of what they're reporting is vandalism, but it also reports spam, bias, and copyright violation. Is there some missing category of abuse you think should be here? Or are you saying that vandalism isn't abuse?
    • chrisjj 3y ago
      "This page summarises a limited number of long term abusers" but then "Only add vandals" > it also reports spam, bias, and copyright violation. Yet "Only add vandals". > Is there some missing category of abuse you think should be here? Or are you saying that vandalism isn't abuse? I am saying abuse does not /equal/ vandalism yet this page promotes the opposite.
      • jfengel 3y ago
        Ah, I see, thank you. That's definitely badly written, but I think that the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that it goes beyond a narrow interpretation of "vandals": Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, especially ones whose contributions could be confused for good-faith edits by somebody unfamiliar with their modus operandi. This includes sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, POV-pushers, editors who add deliberately false or biased information and promotional editors. In particular, that's excluding the kind of drive-by abuse that I associate with "vandalism", the equivalent of graffiti by writing irrelevant and/or offensive things on pages just to prove that they can. So I think they should definitely replace the word "vandals" with "abusers" there. (And, uh, maybe somebody should, since that is itself a wiki page.)