--- On Mon, 8/31/09, David M Chess <[email protected]> wrote:
> Calling these "blunders" is a bit misleading; they're pretty much all
> instances of vandalism. And most instances of vandalism are fixed very very
> quickly (within minutes or better).
True, I've fixed a few myself. Usually some sort of political statement (i.e.
"Dr. such and such murdered unborn children..."). The auto-correcting (and
perhaps auto-vandalizing?) nature of Wiki is one of its most unique
characteristics.
> It would be more interesting to see
> a list of untruths that persisted for (say) longer than a
> day. And to see some analysis of which were successful vandalism and
> which were something else. Otherwise, "Wikipedia has at
> various instants contained false statements!" really isn't all that
> interesting, and doesn't really tell us much...
I think it would take something of a concerted effort to perform such an
analysis. Only once have I gotten dragged into the midst of a wiki-editors'
war, and what I learned is that there are some folks who put a lot of effort
into bending the W to reflect their views. Researchers would have to have at
least as much free time to dedicate to the task to come up with a useful
analysis, but it would certainly be valuable.
-chris
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
