Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

Shortcut: WP:MOV WP:TMOAV WP:MOTIVATION

As more and more people discover the free source of knowledge that is Wikipedia, more and more vandals appear to wreak havoc. The question that many good editors ask is "Why would anyone wish to vandalize a source of information that benefits people?". The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is usually the same; to entertain themselves.

1 Vandalizing for attention
2 Other motivations for vandalism
3 Well Meaning But Misguided Edits
4 Vandalism merely a pejorative term for radicalism?
5 Ex-vandals
6 Vandalism to show weaknesses in the concept of a Wiki
7 Notes

[edit] Vandalizing for attention

The definition of vandalism according to Merriam Webster is, "The willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property".^[1] As a vandal enters Wikipedia, he immediately sees the large number of contributors who work tirelessly on Wikipedia, sacrificing their personal time to help improve a project and concept that is bigger than themselves. The vandal, seeing the large amount of contributors, has realized he has found his audience. The vandal does not premeditate what his attack will look like but will plan its location. He will most often choose a highly controversial article and make an offensive statement^[2] to draw attention from the other editors.

With every warning from an editor to not vandalize, the vandal feels a growing sense of self-satisfaction that his "work" has been acknowledged. This is the true problem for the good editors, for they must warn a vandal, but this only makes him vandalize more, mostly out of retaliation. Even when a user is blocked, he returns to vandalize more, but this time more stealthily. He still wants recognition for his work, but he realizes that if he is blocked, he can no longer edit.

He will change details so that it changes the article noticeably,^[3] but won't be considered serious vandalism. He may receive another warning, but he will not get blocked because of it, which was exactly what he wanted in the first place.

[edit] Other motivations for vandalism

While most vandals edit for attention, there are a few other motivations behind their actions. Some vandalize because they believe it is funny and find amusement in publicly humiliating someone, or making the article lose its credibility.^[4] Other vandals edit to change articles that do not coincide with their beliefs, whether political,^[5] religious,^[6] or social. After these changes, the vandal feels that he "put one over" on the people who oppose his ideals. The edits are usually reverted quickly, but the vandal still has the satisfaction that for a while, someone around the world would have seen his edits and may have been offended. Some vandals claim to be motivated by a desire to use their vandalism to expose what they perceive to be flaws in Wikipedia's design or implementation.

Some less-malicious vandals try to alter multiple articles in such way that the clues in their edits point at the next article in the chain, creating a sort of a scavenger hunt for another person (usually a friend) to revert. Another possible motivation is that the user's judgement has been impaired for some reason, either by a chemical cause or by emotional and/or mental issues.

[edit] Well Meaning But Misguided Edits

Some of what passes for vandalism is in fact something more benign, as shown below under "radicalism." In some cases a person will read an article, and see or imagine a glaring omission, and "fix" it. This often leads to long and protracted "edit wars," although in many cases the "vandal" is the only person who believes his or her point of view; after being banned, the edits cease. For example, an anonymous user has been making changes to the biographies of many Republicans currently embroilled in scandals ( Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, etc ) with links to the Log Cabin Republicans page. These people were never members of the group, and after a dozen or so edits, the changes ceased. It seems that while the user was editorializing false beliefs, he or she was "improving" the pages in his or her own imagination.

[edit] Vandalism merely a pejorative term for radicalism?

Below are some alternative theories as to why a 'vandal' may be motivated to disrupt the months and years of work that goes into a typical article:

The vandal feels that the whole article is in dire need of revision. Such a task is beyond them, so they show their disdain for the extant article by adding something radical.
The vandal feels that the general climate of Wikipedia needn't be so stuffy, with editors poo-pooing their contributions with 'NPOV this' and 'citation needed that'. So they add something radical to show their disdain for the prevailing worship of all things 'professional'.
The vandal feels that some critically-important viewpoint on the topic at hand is missing, so they add something radical.
The vandal perceives a powerful inner circle of regular editors who scorn all radical edits. They make radical edits just to show disdain for the 'Establishment'.
The vandal is doing it for fun.
The vandal likes the attention and thinks it is amusing to destroy other people's work.

[edit] Ex-vandals

Some vandals will try contributing positively and will receive positive reinforcement from the people who used to revert them. This causes some vandals to stop their destructive edits and begin a road to improving Wikipedia. While this isn't always the case, the craving for attention by making destructive edits can be destroyed if you assist the vandal in becoming a constructive user and then giving him or her encouragement to become a better editor. Sadly, many vandals do not wish to proceed to this stage of maturity and will continue vandalizing until they are blocked indefinitely. In the end, there is nothing we can do about these editors but revert, warn, and eventually block them forever from the information bazaar that is Wikipedia.

[edit] Vandalism to show weaknesses in the concept of a Wiki

Many vandals aren't out to seek attention, but vandalize in order destroy the ideal of Wikipedia. Those individuals who believe Wikipedia and other open format knowledge bases are of poor quality in comparison to other encyclopedias —Britannica, World Book, etc.— will often make very nonchalant edits that are difficult to find in order to prove that nonsense and false information can be added to Wikipedia. These editors will often look back at their edits months after the vandalism and see that their edits are still there and use that as further proof that Wikipedia is flawed. Individuals sometimes vandalize Wikipedia purely out of spite for the ideal. This practice is seen in American universities among students and faculty, the latter of which often declare Wikipedia to be an invalid source for citation in academic papers.