Cyber Nations Wiki talk:Vandalism

Proposed changes
Current policy:


 * "Vandalism on the Cyber Nations Wiki is defined as deliberately deleting or altering contents of an article or page to something that does not help the page or article, by the digression of administrators and/or bureaucrats."

What this is saying is that if someone makes a change, and I think it was bad for the article, then they are a vandal.

In an attempt to be brief, I'll say that I believe vandalism should be defined as "deliberately deleting (blanking) or editing an article or page in order to purposefully ruin the article".

Some may say that this policy is even more open-ended then the previous one, and to that I would agree. To call an editor a vandal is a serious charge and I don't believe we should be throwing around the term so often. Under the previous policy, the blocking of User:Vain was completely appropriate. Because J Andres felt that his edit made the article worse (as a side note, I agree). But I personally don't believe he did it in order to ruin the article. He may not have completely understood how wikis work, how we are attempting to catalog all information, good and bad. He may not have understood that pages need to be unbiased. Therefore I think the proper course of action would be to change the rules, so that policy dictates that a fellow editor (we are all the same really) should inform the user of what parts of Cyber Nations Wiki there edit shows that they don't know yet. Then let them know that there edits could be construed as vandalism because *insert what general policy it breaks (NPOV, ect.)*. Of course, this policy does not let the obvious vandals off. As it is pretty clear someone meant to harm an article if they blank it and insert some insults or whatever. Another thing to note is that not everyone completely understands how to use a wiki, and could accidentally blank a page. I would say that giving "warnings" would be best. But I think that's too harsh, I think simply talking to someone and giving them a chance to explain or respond would be best.

I'll elaborate if needed, but I think I typed too much already. :) -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 07:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)