User:A-Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Tearin s*** up!
You will notice I'm boldly moving virus and trojan articles alike to reflect a more consistent and descriptive naming scheme.
- All computer viruses will be in the format 'Foo (computer virus)'
- All trojan horses will be in the format 'Foo (trojan horse)'
- All computer worms will be in the format 'Foo (computer worm)'
This is required to differentiate biological viruses from computer viruses from trojan horses (and from worms too). Example:
I hope you agree this is much-needed progress. A-Day (c)(t) 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] <rant>
My next project will be massivly regexing the list of computer viruses and list of trojan horses and their respective articles such that the name of every computer virus is suffixed with ' (computer virus)' and the name of every trojan horse is suffixed with ' (trojan horse)'. Lots of page moves will be required too, but it's better to do this sooner than later, especially in light of introducing bots to manage the lists as a defense for their Keep.
[edit] </rant>
[edit] Complete, pretty much
I hope it's useful. A-Day (c)(t) 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BG
I started making up some virus entries a while back but realized that that is not only a lot of work but may also be non-kosher for copyright reasons (though I am careful to cite sources, so the more I think about this, the less I think it is wrong, so I might get back into it rather than playing Tribes). I'm much less active now, editing what I read if I'm motivated (though this may change soon).
Recently, I updated the Ammeter, Ohmmeter, and Voltmeter articles, and checked out some of my past edits. I'm really excited now that some folks have been good enough to edit my virus entries! They even do inconsistent categorizations ( some short articles are stubs, others aren't, and one virus is "malware" while the others aren't ) and spelling "corrections" ( effect/affect, organization/oganisation ), which seems very wikish, and so I am honored. It is cool that someone tried to make an ABC virus article. They just didn't try very hard.
In the past I haven't been for any restriction of edit privledges, but my little experience with the virus articles does show me that there are plenty of folks who really shouldn't edit. There was one guy in the past who saw the word "Zeno" in a virus article and thought it would be a good idea to do some linking. The problem was his idea of "Zeno" was a programming language, and the article's was that of a virus name.
I also looked at the 2005 budget for Wikimedia and noticed it's getting huge fast. Restricting edits could also reduce server stress and the need for so much server hardware.
Maybe we could rate the usefulness of someone's edits. Someone has to review the edits at one point or another, anyways, and the folks who aren't good should be stopped. Recording IP address and username are only marginally useful because the guy who is doing non-useful edits can still edit under a different username or IP address. The next best thing could be to inform the user that their edits are being blocked because of these unfavorable ratings. So their edit privileges are suspended for some length of time which increases as they do more dumb things and decreases as they do intelligent things. The key is to let the person know why they are being suspended, why the suspension is desirable for Wikipedia, and perhaps how they should improve (supplied by the edit raters). Correction makes for good content.
