Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
A frequently-used way of dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia is to Revert, block, and ignore. This denies recognition to vandals that might otherwise turn them into long-term abusers. In the past we have neatly categorized vandals and constructed shrines for them on Wikipedia. No longer! Long-term vandals will quickly grow tired when all of their "work" is quietly reverted, their accounts/IPs blocked, and their cries for attention ignored, with no fanfare whatsoever. The prime motivation of serious vandals is to have a long-term effect on the encyclopedia; when they are simply reverted and blocked without so much as the bat of an eyelash and everything continues on as usual, they will go elsewhere.
There is a constant temptation for Wikipedians to play cops and robbers with vandals. Countering vandalism becomes a form of law enforcement. It should be remembered that most vandals are bored students with nothing more interesting to do. The best way to dissuade them from vandalising is to convince them that vandalising is boring and has no impact on the community or the encyclopedia. Boredom is Wikipedia's secret weapon. This is done by swift applications of RBI. "Law enforcement" and vandal paranoia themes are thus counterproductive, since they invite the vandal to see himself as a nemesis pitted against Wikipedia. The role-playing game may be enjoyed by the vandal and some Wikipedians alike - but the net effect is to undermine the boredom that will eventually drive the vandal away.
[edit] Opposing view
This idea has opponents. Some believe that this is not entirely possible to implement, and in fact such areas as the Wikipedia administrators' noticeboard for incidents, Wikipedia:Vandalism and the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit would necessarily negate such an argument. Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages exists, and thus does the very opposite of ignoring vandalism. There is also Wikipedia:Long term abuse, where persistent vandals are tracked, and are definitely not reverted, blocked and ignored! Certainly, the Wikipedia Signpost routinely ignores such an idea, and there are articles on Wikipedia that deal with vandalism on the project and its consequences. Two whole sections in Wikipedia in popular culture describe how Wikipedia has been vandalised. The first is Wikipedia in popular culture#Vandalism of Wikipedia in popular culture, and the other is Wikipedia in popular culture#Wikiality, which refers to an incident where Stephen Colbert suggested that viewers change the elephant page to state that the number of African elephants has tripled in the last six months. The suggestion resulted in vandalism of Wikipedia articles related to elephants and Africa.
