Wikipedia talk:Vandalism statistics

Latest comment: 14 years ago by HaeB in topic Similar studies
See mailarchive:foundation-l/2009-August/054171.html

Similar studies

edit

(Some quick links, addition of proper citations would be welcome.)

I totally understand the author's reasons for ignoring the fact that, as he expressed it, "some things flagged as reverts aren't really addressing what we would conventionally consider to be vandalism" (cf. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars), for the purpose of arriving at a good ballpark figure. However, one cannot help to note that the recently announced results of the PARC group finding "evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content, especially when the edits come from occasional editors" - or at least some public reactions to it - interpreted reverts in the opposite way, namely as good contributions being rejected by narrow-minded (and mostly inner circle) Wikipedians. The PARC researchers say they excluded vandalism, but not by what definition.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Labels used in the last few rows

edit

The labels "Last six months,Last year,Last two years,All-time" might confuse the readers since they haven't been updated for a while.--upulpp 09:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upulpp (talkcontribs)