Sysop vandalism: Difference between revisions

29 bytes added ,  16 November 2004
Fixed wikilink to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion - should work correctly now.
(revert. sorry, my bad i edited an out of date diff)
(Fixed wikilink to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion - should work correctly now.)
Line 5: Line 5:
These problems are made much worse by [[permanent sysop status]] and a model where one pays no price and loses no status even for the reversion of edits which are deemed ultimately constructive.  Such behavior is certain to drive off the best contributors, but to serve the sysops' purpose of "converting" the board or wiki into a [[virtual community]] only for their own friends.
These problems are made much worse by [[permanent sysop status]] and a model where one pays no price and loses no status even for the reversion of edits which are deemed ultimately constructive.  Such behavior is certain to drive off the best contributors, but to serve the sysops' purpose of "converting" the board or wiki into a [[virtual community]] only for their own friends.


The most common sysop vandalism is [[ad hominem delete]] or [[ad hominem revert]] of legitimate facts or analysis, or fair comment, simply "because that user is a troll", whatever that means. This is enabled by the infamous "rule 6" of the [[Wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion]] page, which remains despite being hotly contested by all who understand [[systemic bias]]. This policy is for the convenience of the sysops, and not the users. Users of course expect all information that advances the mission of the wiki to be available, at the very least in the older versions, and the GFDL seems in spirit at least to require this, in its [[attribution]] terms, in its requirement that modifications be [[share-alike]], and its assumption that some [[moral rights]] apply (like retrieving the source text of your own article, or indeed any article with "no [[technical barrier]]s", i.e. no [[IP block]], no [[MySQL]]).  
The most common sysop vandalism is [[ad hominem delete]] or [[ad hominem revert]] of legitimate facts or analysis, or fair comment, simply "because that user is a troll", whatever that means. This is enabled by the infamous "rule 6" of the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion|candidates for speedy deletion]] page, which remains despite being hotly contested by all who understand [[systemic bias]]. This policy is for the convenience of the sysops, and not the users. Users of course expect all information that advances the mission of the wiki to be available, at the very least in the older versions, and the GFDL seems in spirit at least to require this, in its [[attribution]] terms, in its requirement that modifications be [[share-alike]], and its assumption that some [[moral rights]] apply (like retrieving the source text of your own article, or indeed any article with "no [[technical barrier]]s", i.e. no [[IP block]], no [[MySQL]]).  


Typically such vandalism is a symptom of [[conflicts between users]] in which the sysop is not neutral, that is, they wish to encourage one contributor and discourage another.  They abuse their sysop powers by banning "those who their friends do not like", and eliminating valid contributions towards the goals.  There may be cases where this is valid, i.e. someone irreplaceable has made clear that they will not participate if someone else is tolerated.  Unless the medium has a formal [[power structure]], e.g. it's a [[political party]] [[large public wiki]] governed by the policies of that party and its officers, such decisions are almost always either "sysop instinct" or [[GodKing]] choices.
Typically such vandalism is a symptom of [[conflicts between users]] in which the sysop is not neutral, that is, they wish to encourage one contributor and discourage another.  They abuse their sysop powers by banning "those who their friends do not like", and eliminating valid contributions towards the goals.  There may be cases where this is valid, i.e. someone irreplaceable has made clear that they will not participate if someone else is tolerated.  Unless the medium has a formal [[power structure]], e.g. it's a [[political party]] [[large public wiki]] governed by the policies of that party and its officers, such decisions are almost always either "sysop instinct" or [[GodKing]] choices.
Anonymous user