Rather, this is a community-editable page in an attempt to define what we consider to be vandalism. Feel free to edit the text so that it reflects your understanding of the community attitude toward vandalism. This page is not an all-language policy page. It only reflects an English point of view. See also: w:Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. It's arguable that most identified vandalism has consisted of really quite obvious cases. Hence, Wikipedia doesn't need to define an "official" policy on what constitutes vandalism at all.
We can use the rule of thumb, "When a reasonable person might be in doubt as to whether something is vandalism, it would be polite not to call it vandalism. Of course, that depends on the normative definitions of "obvious", "reasonable" and "polite", which are necessarily subjective. Patent vandalism is vandalism where both the reader, and the contributor of the suspected vandalism , agree that it is vandalism.
Vandalism detection is a one-class classification problem, where vandalism edits are the target to be identified among all revisions. Interestingly, vandalism detection has not been addressed in the Information Retrieval literature by now.
In this paper we discuss the characteristics of vandalism as humans recognize it and develop features to render vandalism detection as a machine learning task. We compiled a large number of vandalism edits in a corpus, which allows for the comparison of existing and new detection approaches.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF. Skip to main content. This service is more advanced with JavaScript available. Advertisement Hide. It may include the addition of juvenile, deceiving, repulsive, offensive, derogatory, off-topic, or overall inappropriate content, often replacing the accurate information and overriding users' productive contributions.
Good question. I too have always wondered why people would find it interesting to perform such juvenile acts. A better question is "why wouldn't it be?
A knowledge base should always stay constructive in information provision and never exhibit such silly and immature acts. Vandalism is extremely disruptive towards a community because it hinders the reader's ability to absorb information on the topic they want to read about and often wastes the time of the people who have to revert it luckily their is a team here to help with that, but I won't discuss it until later in the blog.
Databases are very helpful uses for holding information on a vast variety of subjects and vandalizers desecrate their purpose and don't help the reader's desire to learn. Absolutely not. All the problems addressed above definitely should be a giveaway as to why vandalism is never good and I don't think much more input is needed for this question.
There are no exceptions to the vandalism policy. If you are an admin on a certain wiki, the best solution would be to block the vandal and their IP address to prevent any further disruption, as well as any other sockpuppets they create and IPs they attempt to edit from.
0コメント