...newly independent project was launched at Wikipedia.com on January 15, 2001....
It has come a long way since then. Search for anything these days and you see a wikipedia link. Its sad that I cant quote (and wisely so) it in any paper.
In a short period wikipedia managed to hold thousands and thousands of articles. click here [slashdot.org] for the/. article on 300,000 articles on wikipedia.
I still cant figure out how spammers have been kept at bay. Any idea?
I still cant figure out how spammers have been kept at bay. Any idea?
Basically the transaction costs for healing Wikipedia are less than those to harm it, over a reasonable period of time. I am an admin and if I see vandalism to an article, it takes about ten total clicks to check that editor has vandalized other articles and made no positive contributions, block the IP address or username, and rollback all of the vandalism by that user. It takes more clicks if they editd a lot of articles quickly, but they had to spend much more time coming up with stupid crap to put in the articles, hitting edit, submit, etc.
After being blocked, they have to be really persistant to keep coming back to vandalize. Some are, but luckily many more people are there to notice them and revert the vandalism. Its a beautiful thing.
I'm currently taking a brief WikiVacation, but before GAFIAted, I had noticed a (just on the wrong side of the-)borderline troll who had discovered a new algorithm for hurting Wiki: He would go into a long article and make about twenty different small edits in a row, all over the article. Some of the edits would be neutral. Some would be helpful (typos corrected, etc.). Some would be bad, but at least slightly defensible. And the rest would be bad edits, ranging in severity from NPOV trolling up to borderli
if all his edits are in a row (or even possibblly if thier are other minor edits in between) then probablly the easiest way to deal with this is to view all his edits as one big dif and use those to decide what to reapplly
don't try to diff one version at a time or you will be there ages
If it's working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
If it's not working, the diagnostics say it's fine.
- A proposed addition to rules for realtime programming
wikipedia everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
It has come a long way since then. Search for anything these days and you see a wikipedia link. Its sad that I cant quote (and wisely so) it in any paper.
In a short period wikipedia managed to hold thousands and thousands of articles. click here [slashdot.org] for the /. article on 300,000 articles on wikipedia.
I still cant figure out how spammers have been kept at bay. Any idea?
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)
Basically the transaction costs for healing Wikipedia are less than those to harm it, over a reasonable period of time. I am an admin and if I see vandalism to an article, it takes about ten total clicks to check that editor has vandalized other articles and made no positive contributions, block the IP address or username, and rollback all of the vandalism by that user. It takes more clicks if they editd a lot of articles quickly, but they had to spend much more time coming up with stupid crap to put in the articles, hitting edit, submit, etc. After being blocked, they have to be really persistant to keep coming back to vandalize. Some are, but luckily many more people are there to notice them and revert the vandalism. Its a beautiful thing.
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)