| Revision as of 18:05, 25 November 2009 view sourceKeegscee (talk | contribs)2,699 edits Undid revision 327895533 by 193.63.48.253 (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:26, 25 November 2009 view source Keegscee (talk | contribs)2,699 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I have given up my life of vandalism and will make constructive edits when I have the time. However, I will still encourage others' pursuits of ''obvious'' vandalism because I believe that vandalism in moderation helps Misplaced Pages. The key word here is obvious. Discretely changing statistics is not obvious vandalism and it may later be taken as fact if not quickly reverted. However, adding words like 'penis' or 'boobs' to an article will almost always get reverted, and even if it doesn't, will never be confused as anything except vandalism. Here is why I think obvious vandalism helps the project: | I have given up my life of vandalism and will make constructive edits when I have the time. However, I will still encourage others' pursuits of ''obvious'' vandalism because I believe that vandalism in moderation helps Misplaced Pages. The key word here is obvious. Discretely changing statistics is not obvious vandalism and it may later be taken as fact if not quickly reverted. However, adding words like 'penis' or 'boobs' to an article will almost always get reverted, and even if it doesn't, will never be confused as anything except vandalism. Here is why I think obvious vandalism helps the project: | ||
| Many Wikipedians spend at least some part of their editing time fighting vandalism. I've read several administrator pages that claim that vandalism reversal takes time away from constructive edits. While this is undeniably true, I also believe that many Wikipedians wouldn't even be here if it weren't for vandalism. They were either drawn here to vandalize and decided to change their ways or they feel like they are accomplishing something be fighting vandalism. Either way, even if they only make one, small edit while here that they wouldn't have made otherwise, the project has been improved. Of course, not all vandals are like this, and my theory is not based on any data whatsoever (just a gut instinct), but I like to give vandals the benefit of the doubt. It is entirely possible that they do more good than harm. |
Many Wikipedians spend at least some part of their editing time fighting vandalism. I've read several administrator pages that claim that vandalism reversal takes time away from constructive edits. While this is undeniably true, I also believe that many Wikipedians wouldn't even be here if it weren't for vandalism. They were either drawn here to vandalize and decided to change their ways or they feel like they are accomplishing something be fighting vandalism. Either way, even if they only make one, small edit while here that they wouldn't have made otherwise, the project has been improved. Of course, not all vandals are like this, and my theory is not based on any data whatsoever (just a gut instinct), but I like to give vandals the benefit of the doubt. It is entirely possible that they do more good than harm. | ||
| Also, if you really feel the need to vandalize, try doing it at www.conservapedia.com. Vandalizing at that site is hilarious. They are a bunch of nut jobs. | |||
Revision as of 18:26, 25 November 2009
I have given up my life of vandalism and will make constructive edits when I have the time. However, I will still encourage others' pursuits of obvious vandalism because I believe that vandalism in moderation helps Misplaced Pages. The key word here is obvious. Discretely changing statistics is not obvious vandalism and it may later be taken as fact if not quickly reverted. However, adding words like 'penis' or 'boobs' to an article will almost always get reverted, and even if it doesn't, will never be confused as anything except vandalism. Here is why I think obvious vandalism helps the project:
Many Wikipedians spend at least some part of their editing time fighting vandalism. I've read several administrator pages that claim that vandalism reversal takes time away from constructive edits. While this is undeniably true, I also believe that many Wikipedians wouldn't even be here if it weren't for vandalism. They were either drawn here to vandalize and decided to change their ways or they feel like they are accomplishing something be fighting vandalism. Either way, even if they only make one, small edit while here that they wouldn't have made otherwise, the project has been improved. Of course, not all vandals are like this, and my theory is not based on any data whatsoever (just a gut instinct), but I like to give vandals the benefit of the doubt. It is entirely possible that they do more good than harm.
Also, if you really feel the need to vandalize, try doing it at www.conservapedia.com. Vandalizing at that site is hilarious. They are a bunch of nut jobs.