...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?
...newly independent project was launched at Wikipedia.com on January 15, 2001....
Don't you think it's just a wee touch too early to be writing about the early history of something that didn't exist five years ago? Maybe we can start writing about the early history of my puppy Pepper while we're at it. But as adorable as he is, neither he nor Wikipedia should be written about at all. Not yet.
Do you care to explain why? If you are contributing to the wikipedia project, what makes you less interested in the origins of the project if they are 5 years old than if they are 25 years old?
I only argue semantics here, not the worth of wikipedia as a valuable resource. Usually you only hear about the early history of things when there's a later history you can hear about as well; say, for example, a king's reign, the early history of the Yankees, an early history of stock markets, etc. All I'm trying to say is that there isn't enough history yet to be talking about Wikipedia's "early history." (Thus the sad parallel to my puppy.) I imagine that ten years from now, people will talk about now
It might have something to do with the spam blacklist.
Well, of course. Such blacklists have successfully eliminated spam over e-mail, so we would expect them to work just as well for Wikipedia.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, I think you're right; the spam blacklist helps. But it must be more than that. And, like the earlier poster, I don't know what it is, either.
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
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
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)
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)
Don't you think it's just a wee touch too early to be writing about the early history of something that didn't exist five years ago? Maybe we can start writing about the early history of my puppy Pepper while we're at it. But as adorable as he is, neither he nor Wikipedia should be written about at all. Not yet.
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:2)
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)
Well, of course. Such blacklists have successfully eliminated spam over e-mail, so we would expect them to work just as well for Wikipedia.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, I think you're right; the spam blacklist helps. But it must be more than that. And, like the earlier poster, I don't know what it is, either.
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
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wikipedia everywhere (Score:1)