Wikipedia talk:The Motivation of a Vandal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is just an insight to the mentality of a vandal. Please contribute and expand. Thetruthbelow 07:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hilarity
A lot of it stems from immaturity and or boredom . When I first discovered the Wikipedia I found it incredibly funny to change the content of some pages, but tried my best to make it seem fitting with the article e.g. changing Casey Donovan's homepage to that of a gay pornstar who shares the same name; making disparaging false comments regarding Bob Brown's stance on gay marriage.
Another significant factor was when I first tried to make constructive edits (about a place I used to live), a particularly overzealous RC patroller kept reverting all the information. In retaliation I abused them on their talk page, and was banished immediately for 24 hours. This served only to make me more pissed off, and I returned with more venom and anger than previously.
The temptation is still there - often I feel very tempted to make (what I think is) a funny or lewd remark, but I suppose it is a matter of mind over maturity. Wish me luck.
[edit] Not always...
A small majority are out there to just destroy this place, attention or otherwise. At least one (WP:TCV) has admitted it, and others (Think banned users with a grudge here) also follow the same rationale. 68.39.174.238 05:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I totally agree. Many vandals are motivated by a bona fide desire to hurt Wikipedia, undermine its credibility, and drive productive users from the project.Wiki Mirabeau 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- A further example: User:Primetime. His motivation genuinely seems to be to help us out, albeit in an extremely misguided and dangerous manner. 68.39.174.238 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd imagine that would some would vandalise not to hurt anyone but just because they like the power or the ability to destroy, similarly to some arsonists perhaps. raptor 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'd like to see . . .
I'd like to see this entire article recast in the plural, both to avoid the implication that all vandals are male (even though I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they are) and to avoid the cumbersome "he or she" constructions that would be otherwise necessary. ForDorothy 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was about to make that point. Actually, I could imagine there'd be some female vandals, but almost certainly outnumbered by males... most of whom are probably teenage boys.--HisSpaceResearch 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd estimate that about 90% of Wikipedia vandals are male, and about 90% of vandals being under the age of 20.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not Always (Second the Motion)
I agree with the "Not Always" poster. The motivations of vandals may be various, and in some cases may boil down to nothing more complicated than a genetic preference to cause havoc irrespective of whether it brings attention to the vandal. (Many vandals, in fact, prefer that their acts remain anonymous, for obvious reasons.)
As I read this article, I was struck with a strong suspicion that the whole purpose behind the article is to discourage vandals while sounding like an objective dissertation on vandalism's cause. While dissuading vandalism may be a noble goal (to non-vandals, anyway), it is not necessarily synonymous with finding out what actually causes vandalism. --DarelRex 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This essay is written with a rather dated psychoanalytic view...
It's a little simplistic to say that a vandal just wants attention. I can think of a few other reasons, and have added them to the article.
Dismissing all vandalism as a mere 'cry for attention' isn't the most constructive way of viewing the problem, in my humble opinion. -- Chris 00:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Solicitation for improvement
This is my basic suggestion for a revision to this page. I want to get other peoples different inputs on this here first, especially since this involves a significant change to the tone and direction of the page. In outline form:
1. Motivation of a vandal: we don't know unless they tell us (Note that this can include extremely obvious signs, however care should be exercised with these).
2. Common ones seen:
A. Amusement (EG. People who get a kick out of seeing damage, or seeing people repair it)
B. Outright malice (EG. Someone who genuinely has a grudge against us for some reason, some types of trolling)
C. Deliberate violation of the rules for their own reasons (EG. Jason Gastrich, maybe Karmafist)
D. Attention (EG. The North Carolina vandal)
E. Mental illness (EG. Randallrobinstine, MascotGuy)
G. Influence (EG. A worker being told to vandalize articels on their competitors, a SPAMmer being paid to, well, SPAM. (Note that both of these assume that the people involved know full well that what they're doing is wrong))
H. Misguidedness (EG. Primetime, who seems to want to make us the most concise encyclopedia ever... by dumping plagairized copyvios on us. Note again that he understands and refuses to follow copyright laws, "information ethics", etc)
H. Unique circumstances (EG. A vindictive person who loses an election may take it out by vandalizing their opponents page, or the victim of a fraudster, etc.)
2a. Note that none of these are inherently mutually exclusive. Failure to note this may lead to overly- to extremely- simplistic conclusions and assumptions, which may lead to trouble as outlined below in 3.
3. Application of this knowledge by possibly neutralizing the vandal by addressing the cause of the vandalism (EG. Dampening the amusement a vandal gets by showing them the one-sided-ness of their emotions and interpretations of their acts)
A. Care should be taken:
I. That the "cause" being addressed is the real cause, not a decoy or an incorrect interpretation. Missing this could result in someone looking foolish at best and being offensive and alienatory at worst.
II. To ensure that they don't relapse, especially for certain circumstances (EG. User:Michael)
III. To stop losses by being able to reasonably tell when a vandal has gone past the "point of no return", where they are obviously not interested in reform, are making (false) pretenses only to be able to troll or continue their vandalisms, etc.
4. Importance of not jumping to conclusions. Revert, block, but keep track. Share information, but not in a counterintuitive or counterproductive way.
5. [Forgot]
That's my suggestion anyway. My main concern is deviating from discussing vandals to the (ever present) discussion of HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM. 68.39.174.238 03:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Add:
- breaching experiment
- bigotry
- BlankVerse 03:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Boys want to destroy things, it's their nature
Teenage boys are angry, angry every waking hour. They do not need and generally do not have any specific reason to be angry. They punch holes in walls, they blow stuff up – if they have access to powerful M-80-type firecrackers, or gunpowder and metal pipes, they will blow up inanimate objects far and wide. They will run over small animals with their cars. If they see an unoccupied structure out in the woods they will break its windows, or even knock it down. Maybe they just need to leave traces of themselves somewhere. When I was a kid it was a smoking hole in the middle of a vacant lot, or a dozen holes kicked in a box of paper products in a supermarket backroom. I'm developing a theory as I type, kids (always at least two, that's where the attention comes in, not from wiki readers or the vandal patrol), kids knocking holes in Wikipedia, too lazy to go outside and do it the old-fashioned way. Maybe we are doing a public service and forestalling a certain amount of mayhem in the physical world by providing this fine playground. --CliffC 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Err... I'm not too sure about the thesis of that argument. Without compromizing anyones privacy, I can say that is a FAR too broad categorization. 68.39.174.238 06:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I notice you spell it "compromizing" so I'll refine my statement by saying that perhaps this behavior reflects more of the American "Wild West" mindset, and the lads are tamer over there. The behaviors I describe (excepting of course the cruelty to animals by a few very bad types) were common in suburban areas in the U.S. in years past when children actually went outside to play, and attracted little police attention as anything but noisy mischief. Of course not 100% of teenage boys are angry. Hopefully the many who are will take it out on the virtual world and not the real one. I think the "Motivations" essay needs to tip a big hat to the raging hormones of adolescence. --CliffC 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I spelt it "compromizing" because I'd just read a book on Benjamin Franklin and was rather taking by their enthusiastic use of the letter "Z". "Partizan" just sounds better. 68.39.174.238 00:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- All people are angry some of the time, happy some of the time, thirsty at other times, et cetera. Stating "Teenage boys are angry, angry every waking hour." is a very simplistic view of the world.
-
-
- I'm male and only turned 20 a couple of months ago and never had any great particular desire to destroy things when I was a teenager.--HisSpaceResearch 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Footnote 4
The authors might want to look for another example of a vandalism "publicly humiliating someone". The diff used for footnote 4 includes the full name of the "fat gay kid from Mount Airy, NC" originally targeted. --CliffC 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Well Meaning? Benign?
The section "Well Meaning But Misguided Edits" added today describes a user deliberately tarring members of another political party. I don't think that behavior is "benign" or well-meaning at all, I think it's childish and spiteful. --CliffC 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's spiteful as well. But this is a page about the motivation of vandals, not the reaction fo the community. People get involved with politics for two reasons: personal gain, or to make the world a better place. There's a lot of debate over what "a better place" means and how to get there, but that's what most people in grass-roots politics are genuinely working towards.
- The edits have stopped and the user seems to have been banned, so ultimately the changes were all reverted back. But it should be noted that s/he was reporting an unpleasant truth, which is alltogether different from slander or spreading lies about a person to tarnish their reputation. This is part of why I see the edits as "well meaning." If somebody had added "Dick Cheney eats puppies and kills children" I would see that quite differently than, say, adding a section to his bio about Harry Whittington. The former would be nothing but vandalism and libel, while the second seems to be in good faith.
- Ultimately this describes a lot of "edit wars." Both sides tend to believe their working in the interest of improving an article, yet they disagree on how this should be done. Each side may think of the other as vandals, but sometimes the line is blurred. 71.216.188.161 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- What I was criticising was not the vandals but the choice of the words "well meaning" and "benign" to decribe the libelous edits you mention. Libel is not "reporting an unpleasant truth". --CliffC 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Is it not true that Mark Foley at least attempted sexual relations with underage boys? As you say, this is not libel. I agree with you that this is also not "well meaning," but I'm a Republican. My instinct is to think of Democrats as lazy and evil, and their instinct is to see me as a demon from Hell. I'm forced to admit Foley's behavior shames the entire party he claimed membership in. And I can understand how a person might think they're doing the lord's work ( in other wordds, well meaning ) by "taking him down." DigitalEnthusiast 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Perhaps I should have refined my objection more before posting. The libel here is by adding "...links to the Log Cabin Republicans page. These people were never members of the group..." --CliffC 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
If this is an article on "The Motivation of a Vandal," then 71.216.188.161 is right. Some ( probably few, but some ) vandals are motivated by a mis-guided sense of altruism. Just like Democrats in general, I'd say. Most of them are good people, working to improve the world, and going about it the wrong way. Some wikipedian vandals are doing what they ( not us, they ) believe will make the world and wikipedia both better places. Unless you're a vandal and not telling us about your experience, then your thoughts on whether another person meant well or malign aren't relevant here.
DigitalEnthusiast 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs a split...
This may be an essay, but I highly doubt it'll ever be agreed by even a plurality of people what exactly motivates vandals (At least, untill there's a rigorous study done by a legitimate external organization), and I can see an edit war in the distance between at least two groups with opposing views on this. I suggest it be split into sections, or subpages, or something, to prevent this. 68.39.174.238 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, this would have been my first edit war<g>. However, I don't see any point in going to war over anything as subjective as what motivates a vandal. I'm sure there are many motivations, but what difference does it make? We should instead be working on ways to discourage them. One way might be to depersonalize the (IMO) very personal feedback they get from the legitimate editors here; perhaps all reversions and warnings should be anonymized and standardized by sending them through a bot, similar to quietly and persistently painting over a (street) vandal's tagged wall every night. --CliffC 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandals using Wikipedia as a bulletin board
I believe many vandals use Wikipedia as a platform to communicate personal messages, either to their friends or to the world at large. Here's an extreme example of this (one that I didn't have the heart to delete when I saw it):
The most beautiful and amazing girl in the entire world loves this place with all her heart! She has stolen my heart and has made me the happiest person in the entire world! I love you BETH!!!
--orlady 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can kind of see that myself. They strike me as little more than ignorant children who should go on MySpace for this kind of stuff.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I would have reverted that edit immediately had I seen it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- A fair bit of the vandalism is written in hip-hop slang; for example, see this set of contributions.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I would have reverted that edit immediately had I seen it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reformed ex-vandals who have turned into valuable contributors
Any clear cases of this in existence that anyone knows about? I myself have never vandalised Wikipedia to the best of my memory, having used it since early 2004, but in the early stages I made several good-faith edits that were deemed to be unconstructive, or about non-notable subjects.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
