Re: [MLUG] Re: Wikipedia on /.

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> That's good, but the detritus has to be detected, the wiki owner has 
> to be alerted, then he has to decide if he should act, how far back 
> the damage occurred, then he can do the trivial fix.  Between the time 
> of the vandalism and the time the page is fixed, the page may be read 
> and the reader may be misled.  Of course, the vandal may return, every 
> few days, to make sure the damage, if fixed, is repeated.  And the 
> world's greatest expert might not wish to spend his time checking 
> intermitently that his web page wasn't defaced, so he might not 
> contribute to Wikipedia in the first place. 

The error of your argument is your assumption that a single person has 
to monitor the whole wiki or even a single page by themselves. At any 
given time it's probable that there are more people interested in 
maintaining order than in disrupting order. It's the rule by which 
civilization exists. Because the Wiki lets everyone do their part to 
maintain order the odds are that order will be maintained. That doesn't 
mean that there shouldn't be some sort of policing effort but it does 
mean that things will tend to take care of themselves without having to 
spend a huge amount of centralized effort on the problem. A wiki works 
for exactly the same reason civilization works. So, from time to time, 
the barbarians might come crashing through the gates but they'll always 
be driven back by the forces of order.

Also because this is all technology based.. for every new attack there 
will arise a new defense mechanism. It won't happen overnight but it 
will happen. Wiki defacement is similar to fighting spammers but it has 
the benefit of a community working together whereas usually fighting 
email spam is one person defending against many attackers.

-- 
Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://kavlon.org

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members