Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
John Seigenthaler, an American journalist, was the subject of a defamatory Wikipedia hoax article in May 2005. The hoax raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content. Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, it has faced several controversies. Wikipedia's open-editing model, which allows any user to edit its encyclopedic pages, has led to ...
The most well-known bot that fights vandalism is ClueBot NG. The bot was created by Wikipedia users Christopher Breneman and Naomi Amethyst in 2010 (succeeding the original ClueBot created in 2007; NG stands for Next Generation) [9] and uses machine learning and Bayesian statistics to determine if an edit is vandalism.
Wikipedia's lists of hoaxes and citogenesis citogenesis incidents are running documents of such worst-case scenarios -- as a hoax is just undetected vandalism at large scale. These include invented medical terms that made it into academic journals, falsehoods about politicians that made it to the Senate floor, and innocent men implicated in ...
If the information is already in Wikipedia, even without a source, do not cite the children's source as a replacement or additional source. If the information is not in Wikipedia, citing the children's source may be acceptable. And even children's sources on children's subjects need to be reliable to be used in Wikipedia.
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but ...
On Wikipedia, vandalism in simple terms is defined as deliberate malicious editing.There are many different ways in which Wikipedia is vandalized. These include additions, removals, and modifications that cause intentional harm to the content of the encyclopedia.
An example of vandalism that does not constitute trolling is adding nonsense to a page that one finds funny without regard to how it affects other users. Identification and solutions Vandals are usually easy to identify; however, incidents may arise where the person who appears to be a vandal is actually a misguided editor who is ignorant about ...
The positive outcomes of more restrictive counter-vandalism measures are clear – decreasing vandalism; the negative consequences can include a more hostile reception for new users who are experimenting or unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works, discouragement to editors who find that their good-faith attempt at improving a protected page is ...