50
edits
Sysop vandalism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Sysop vandalism''' is degrading the quality of a [[blog]], [[newsgroup]] or [[wiki]] for reasons that have nothing to do with the objective of the project or the mandate of the group. It occurs frequently on Wikipedia and Disinfopedia - it is worst on the latter where sysops tend to delete things with no process at all, and ignore the [[votes for deletion]] process that non-sysops are required to go through. ''This is a very severe long-term problem and plays a major role in many [[worst cases]] visible on other public wikis.'' | '''Sysop vandalism''' is degrading the quality of a [[blog]], [[newsgroup]] or [[wiki]] for reasons that have nothing to do with the objective of the project or the mandate of the group. It occurs frequently on Wikipedia and Disinfopedia - it is worst on the latter where sysops tend to delete things with no process at all, and ignore the [[votes for deletion]] process that non-sysops are required to go through. ''This is a very severe long-term problem and plays a major role in many [[worst cases]] visible on other public wikis.'' | ||
Such vandalism is surprisingly common: Wikipedia permits and encourages sysop vandalism with the universal excuse that "[[trolls]]" were responsible for the edits, and that somehow they will be discouraged by being "punished" somehow - this idea that [[punishment works]] is part of a [[carceral state]] metaphor. This is the basic [[conceptual metaphor]] of Wikipedia and other wikis that insist one [[use real names]] (and thus be subject to offline abuse by sysops and their 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. | Such vandalism is surprisingly common: Wikipedia permits and encourages sysop vandalism with the universal excuse that "[[trolls]]" were responsible for the edits, and that somehow they will be discouraged by being "punished" somehow - this idea that [[punishment works]] is part of a [[carceral state]] metaphor. This is the basic [[conceptual metaphor]] of Wikipedia and other wikis that insist one [[use real names]] (and thus be subject to offline abuse by sysops and their friends). There is no definition of the hated class of [[trolls]]other than by the very [[sysop]]s who exclude them, and the [[developer]]s who provide features to do so. This is the first step towards a [[permission-based model]] and there may be no way to avoid imposing [[hard security]] if this path is taken by developers. | ||
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]]). | |||
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. | ||