Is vandalism keeping Wikipedia running

[Ognistysztorm]

Perhaps for KPI?

Who would be measuring them?

They perhaps self-measure themselves.

[Bbb23sucks]

Perhaps for KPI?

Who would be measuring them?

They perhaps self-measure themselves.

Tim22 has been banned for sockpuppetry.

[ericbarbour]

Tim22 has been banned for sockpuppetry.

lol
also--meh.

[Dr Mario]

It's more like they like to restore vandalism to articles and general unusefulness to them instead of doing the sensible thing. This list of films based on video games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List ... ideo_games is cummbered with rather useless trivia such as Rotten Tomatoes scores and here is version that doesn't which makes it more user-friendly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1185737069

[Ognistysztorm]

It's more like they like to restore vandalism to articles and general unusefulness to them instead of doing the sensible thing. This list of films based on video games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List ... ideo_games is cummbered with rather useless trivia such as Rotten Tomatoes scores and here is version that doesn't which makes it more user-friendly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1185737069

The problem with the definition of "vandalism" itself is it can be freely and arbitarily interpreted and weaponized. To paraphrase an old saying, one person's vandal is another person's useful editor. If those "useless trivia" you said are backed up by sources and comply with the three pillars then I just see it as unharmful case of inclusionism at work.

[ChaosMeRee]

Vandalism has always been key to Wikipedia's survival.

Without vandals messing things up, the only hook to pull people in was the power of instant publishing. But nowadays, it is quite impossible for a new user to do the latter in any meaningful way. They can't create new articles, nor can they edit anything that actually matters.

The only place a new user can add a sentence to Wikipedia, are the places where vandalism persists. So in all likelihood, it is still the case that the desire to fix vandalism is why a new user makes the leap from reader to editor, and adding additional facts comes later. Maybe only a short time later, but probably never if it wasn't for that desire to fix vandalism.

The more vandalism that gets fixed with automation, or indeed prevented before it can be made live, the fewer new recruits Wikipedia will have, the quicker it will die.

I'm confident the stats back that up.

That said, the vandals should keep up their efforts. But they should focus them where they will not help Wikipedia, and instead probably harm it by demoralizing experienced editors and reminding the world Wikipedia isn't reliable by design. Target the places where new users are not allowed to get involved.

Stress the patrollers and Administrators to breaking point.

And of course, keep vandalizing pages that are accessible to newcomers, but only in a way that the Wikipedians respond by locking out new users.

[Dr Mario]

It's more like they like to restore vandalism to articles and general unusefulness to them instead of doing the sensible thing. This list of films based on video games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List ... ideo_games is cummbered with rather useless trivia such as Rotten Tomatoes scores and here is version that doesn't which makes it more user-friendly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1185737069

The problem with the definition of "vandalism" itself is it can be freely and arbitarily interpreted and weaponized. To paraphrase an old saying, one person's vandal is another person's useful editor. If those "useless trivia" you said are backed up by sources and comply with the three pillars then I just see it as unharmful case of inclusionism at work.

I wouldn't call Roten Tomatoes credible since it seems to depend on which studio Label releases films and whether they get good ratings or not. Then Wikipedia suffers from another issue What is a credible source? Wikipedia just loves to call IMDB as uncredible when it's no better when it comes to obscure stuff. Something about Pot Calling the kettle black.

[Bbb23sucks]

It made the active admins count to fall below 1000 for the first time.

This wasn't even a year ago and now they're already down to 875.

[ericbarbour]

This wasn't even a year ago and now they're already down to 875.

You should know by now what BULLSHIT those lists are.

This says 875.

This says

There are 877 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise), 459 of them active (as of 2024-01-05). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months.

And this has 332 as "semi-active". Meaning they hang by a thread.

This has 82 "inactive". Meaning no visible work in 3 months and really SHOULD be desysopped. The list contains many notorious process abusers of the past: Jayjg, Moonriddengirl, former arbitrators NativeForeigner and Timotheus Canens, Georgewilliamherbert, Fluffernutter, and others. They WILL NOT be desysopped, though, because Wikipedia is a corrupt feudal shogunate, and these little lords are "untouchable".

So how many "active admins" are there? Eenie menie miney moe?

[Lir]

At this point, nearly all wiki power users are mainly just vandalism reverters

Honestly, it was always that way going back to 2001.

The people who become 'bureaucrats' are not writers or editors, they are pedantic Dunning-Kruger types, who really don't understand the subject material. They instead fetishize "rules and conventions", constantly harassing the writers and reverting them according to "policy" - they don't add meaningful new content, or engage in the intellectual effort to actually synthesize opposing views and provide a nuanced narrative. Instead, they latch on to some trivial issue, revert everything the writer wrote without explanation or discussion, and then if the writer persists in trying to edit then they eventually start following the writer around reverting basically everything they write. If the writer then reverts the revert, they can portray the writer as a "persistent troll" and get them banned.