<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_28_1946216</id>
	<title>Developing a Vandalism Detector For Wikipedia</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267346700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>marpot writes <i>"In an effort to assist Wikipedia's editors in their struggle to keep articles clean, we are conducting a <a href="http://pan.webis.de/">public lab on vandalism detection</a>. The goal is the development of a practical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism">vandalism</a> detector that is capable of telling apart ill-intentioned edits from well-intentioned edits. Such a tool, which will work somewhat like a spam detector, will release the crowd's workforce currently occupied with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleaning\_up\_vandalism">manual and semi-automatic</a> edit filtering. The performance of submitted detectors will be evaluated based on a large collection of human-annotated edits, which has been crowdsourced using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Everyone is welcome to participate."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>marpot writes " In an effort to assist Wikipedia 's editors in their struggle to keep articles clean , we are conducting a public lab on vandalism detection .
The goal is the development of a practical vandalism detector that is capable of telling apart ill-intentioned edits from well-intentioned edits .
Such a tool , which will work somewhat like a spam detector , will release the crowd 's workforce currently occupied with manual and semi-automatic edit filtering .
The performance of submitted detectors will be evaluated based on a large collection of human-annotated edits , which has been crowdsourced using Amazon 's Mechanical Turk .
Everyone is welcome to participate .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>marpot writes "In an effort to assist Wikipedia's editors in their struggle to keep articles clean, we are conducting a public lab on vandalism detection.
The goal is the development of a practical vandalism detector that is capable of telling apart ill-intentioned edits from well-intentioned edits.
Such a tool, which will work somewhat like a spam detector, will release the crowd's workforce currently occupied with manual and semi-automatic edit filtering.
The performance of submitted detectors will be evaluated based on a large collection of human-annotated edits, which has been crowdsourced using Amazon's Mechanical Turk.
Everyone is welcome to participate.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309424</id>
	<title>An arms race?</title>
	<author>fysdt</author>
	<datestamp>1267356480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that vandalism on Wikipedia can be limited. But would it really be possible to detect all kinds of vandalism?
<br> <br>
FTA:<br>
<i>"Yahoo! Research will award a cash prize of 500 Euros to the winner of the plagiarism detection task. "</i>
<br> <br>
500 Euro's doesn't sound much for detecting plagiarism on a site like Wikipedia...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that vandalism on Wikipedia can be limited .
But would it really be possible to detect all kinds of vandalism ?
FTA : " Yahoo !
Research will award a cash prize of 500 Euros to the winner of the plagiarism detection task .
" 500 Euro 's does n't sound much for detecting plagiarism on a site like Wikipedia.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that vandalism on Wikipedia can be limited.
But would it really be possible to detect all kinds of vandalism?
FTA:
"Yahoo!
Research will award a cash prize of 500 Euros to the winner of the plagiarism detection task.
"
 
500 Euro's doesn't sound much for detecting plagiarism on a site like Wikipedia...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309298</id>
	<title>Nice template</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267355340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoever posted this clearly isn't aware of the actual work being done in the field. For instance, I was running a \_\_\_<b>[thing]</b>\_\_\_ in \_<b>[year]</b>\_, and it wasn't new at the time. They've gotten much more sophisticated since then. Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel? Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already? Why not just improve on it instead?
<br>* * *<br>
This looks like a useful template for the standard "why reinvent the wheel" Slashdot post; I hope you don't mind if I reuse it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever posted this clearly is n't aware of the actual work being done in the field .
For instance , I was running a \ _ \ _ \ _ [ thing ] \ _ \ _ \ _ in \ _ [ year ] \ _ , and it was n't new at the time .
They 've gotten much more sophisticated since then .
Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel ?
Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already ?
Why not just improve on it instead ?
* * * This looks like a useful template for the standard " why reinvent the wheel " Slashdot post ; I hope you do n't mind if I reuse it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever posted this clearly isn't aware of the actual work being done in the field.
For instance, I was running a \_\_\_[thing]\_\_\_ in \_[year]\_, and it wasn't new at the time.
They've gotten much more sophisticated since then.
Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel?
Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already?
Why not just improve on it instead?
* * *
This looks like a useful template for the standard "why reinvent the wheel" Slashdot post; I hope you don't mind if I reuse it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800</id>
	<title>How about an Admin Abuse Detector?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267351440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had many more problems with admin abuse than vandalism. Vandalism is quick and easy to deal with. Admins are the biggest problem in Wikipedia editing; they have no accountability and abuse their power.</p><p>How about a log of each admin's activities, including reversions, bans, etc, and a way for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had many more problems with admin abuse than vandalism .
Vandalism is quick and easy to deal with .
Admins are the biggest problem in Wikipedia editing ; they have no accountability and abuse their power.How about a log of each admin 's activities , including reversions , bans , etc , and a way for non-admins to challenge actions ( without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had many more problems with admin abuse than vandalism.
Vandalism is quick and easy to deal with.
Admins are the biggest problem in Wikipedia editing; they have no accountability and abuse their power.How about a log of each admin's activities, including reversions, bans, etc, and a way for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310056</id>
	<title>Re:Existing</title>
	<author>Big Jojo</author>
	<datestamp>1267360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apparently, how their vandalism detector works right now is by automatically reverting any edits done by anonymous editors.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've seen signs of that too.  Not always<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but often enough to have acquired a rather negative understanding of the role of some folk with admin privileges at WP.  It's clear when they haven't even bothered to read (much less understand!) the edits they revert.  Or that they just revert anything that offends an ideology they want WP to present on any particular topics.  They think NPV shouldn't apply to their gloriously elevated selves.  (And refuse to acknowledge when their ideology is showing.)

</p><p>That's on top of editors just flagging articles as sub-par but without saying specifically why, or responding to queries about WTF they meant.  Not every article should consist of 50\% citations and 50\% content<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if you're going to say there aren't enough citations, just be specific about which statements you think need citations; that's easy to do.  And maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... read the citations which are already there.  Or even use the Talk: page appropriately, to discuss such issues, if you can't yet be specific enough to be actionable.

</p><p>The messages some admins give is that if you're not part of their particular club, Please Go Away.  Some are even quite public that they object to edits from folk without accounts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... regardless of the content of those edits.  Way too many obnoxious A**hats have admin privs there.

</p><p> <em>How about letting us flag such editors/admins as comment spammers?<em>  It's not like their volume of vague and un-actionable criticisms, or inappropriate reversions, really helps improve WP.  While unlike real spammers, their negative effects are actually hard to correct.</em></em></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , how their vandalism detector works right now is by automatically reverting any edits done by anonymous editors.I 've seen signs of that too .
Not always ... but often enough to have acquired a rather negative understanding of the role of some folk with admin privileges at WP .
It 's clear when they have n't even bothered to read ( much less understand !
) the edits they revert .
Or that they just revert anything that offends an ideology they want WP to present on any particular topics .
They think NPV should n't apply to their gloriously elevated selves .
( And refuse to acknowledge when their ideology is showing .
) That 's on top of editors just flagging articles as sub-par but without saying specifically why , or responding to queries about WTF they meant .
Not every article should consist of 50 \ % citations and 50 \ % content ... if you 're going to say there are n't enough citations , just be specific about which statements you think need citations ; that 's easy to do .
And maybe ... read the citations which are already there .
Or even use the Talk : page appropriately , to discuss such issues , if you ca n't yet be specific enough to be actionable .
The messages some admins give is that if you 're not part of their particular club , Please Go Away .
Some are even quite public that they object to edits from folk without accounts ... regardless of the content of those edits .
Way too many obnoxious A * * hats have admin privs there .
How about letting us flag such editors/admins as comment spammers ?
It 's not like their volume of vague and un-actionable criticisms , or inappropriate reversions , really helps improve WP .
While unlike real spammers , their negative effects are actually hard to correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, how their vandalism detector works right now is by automatically reverting any edits done by anonymous editors.I've seen signs of that too.
Not always ... but often enough to have acquired a rather negative understanding of the role of some folk with admin privileges at WP.
It's clear when they haven't even bothered to read (much less understand!
) the edits they revert.
Or that they just revert anything that offends an ideology they want WP to present on any particular topics.
They think NPV shouldn't apply to their gloriously elevated selves.
(And refuse to acknowledge when their ideology is showing.
)

That's on top of editors just flagging articles as sub-par but without saying specifically why, or responding to queries about WTF they meant.
Not every article should consist of 50\% citations and 50\% content ... if you're going to say there aren't enough citations, just be specific about which statements you think need citations; that's easy to do.
And maybe ... read the citations which are already there.
Or even use the Talk: page appropriately, to discuss such issues, if you can't yet be specific enough to be actionable.
The messages some admins give is that if you're not part of their particular club, Please Go Away.
Some are even quite public that they object to edits from folk without accounts ... regardless of the content of those edits.
Way too many obnoxious A**hats have admin privs there.
How about letting us flag such editors/admins as comment spammers?
It's not like their volume of vague and un-actionable criticisms, or inappropriate reversions, really helps improve WP.
While unlike real spammers, their negative effects are actually hard to correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31312158</id>
	<title>Vandalism, as defined by Wikipedia,</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267380900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is everything that the admin establishment doesn&rsquo;t agree with. Just like in a state with total censorship.<br>And on top of that, the admins often don&rsquo;t know shit about anything.<br>Which is not surprising, considering that they most likely sit in underpants in their basement all day long. Why else would they have so much time to troll around Wikipedia on a deletion spree? Which is obviously not a very mentally healthy thing to do either.</p><p>It&rsquo;s simple: As long as Wikipedia can at all be controlled by a subset of humanity, it&rsquo;s doomed to fail as a encyclopedia for all people. By definition.<br>That&rsquo;s why it must become a P2P system. With cascading information source rules definable by every user for himself. With everybody being able to be the publisher of his view of Wikipedia.</p><p>Because in the end, nearly all you know, is based on the trust on other sources (human beings) anyway. (Yes, including most of what you call &ldquo;facts&rdquo;. Unless you checked for yourself, that information IS based on trust.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is everything that the admin establishment doesn    t agree with .
Just like in a state with total censorship.And on top of that , the admins often don    t know shit about anything.Which is not surprising , considering that they most likely sit in underpants in their basement all day long .
Why else would they have so much time to troll around Wikipedia on a deletion spree ?
Which is obviously not a very mentally healthy thing to do either.It    s simple : As long as Wikipedia can at all be controlled by a subset of humanity , it    s doomed to fail as a encyclopedia for all people .
By definition.That    s why it must become a P2P system .
With cascading information source rules definable by every user for himself .
With everybody being able to be the publisher of his view of Wikipedia.Because in the end , nearly all you know , is based on the trust on other sources ( human beings ) anyway .
( Yes , including most of what you call    facts    .
Unless you checked for yourself , that information IS based on trust .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is everything that the admin establishment doesn’t agree with.
Just like in a state with total censorship.And on top of that, the admins often don’t know shit about anything.Which is not surprising, considering that they most likely sit in underpants in their basement all day long.
Why else would they have so much time to troll around Wikipedia on a deletion spree?
Which is obviously not a very mentally healthy thing to do either.It’s simple: As long as Wikipedia can at all be controlled by a subset of humanity, it’s doomed to fail as a encyclopedia for all people.
By definition.That’s why it must become a P2P system.
With cascading information source rules definable by every user for himself.
With everybody being able to be the publisher of his view of Wikipedia.Because in the end, nearly all you know, is based on the trust on other sources (human beings) anyway.
(Yes, including most of what you call “facts”.
Unless you checked for yourself, that information IS based on trust.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31312194</id>
	<title>Re:How about an Admin Abuse Detector?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think about it, it&rsquo;s not much different form a country with total censorship. This small establishment&rsquo;s view always overrides over everybody else. And they massively make use of that power.</p><p>As I said: As long as it is even possible for a subset of humanity, to control what&rsquo;s going onto Wikipedia, it can by definition not be the encyclopedia for all of humanity.<br>It&rsquo;s obvious that to solve this, central servers and admins are out of the question... resulting in a P2P system of cascading trust relationships.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it , it    s not much different form a country with total censorship .
This small establishment    s view always overrides over everybody else .
And they massively make use of that power.As I said : As long as it is even possible for a subset of humanity , to control what    s going onto Wikipedia , it can by definition not be the encyclopedia for all of humanity.It    s obvious that to solve this , central servers and admins are out of the question... resulting in a P2P system of cascading trust relationships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it, it’s not much different form a country with total censorship.
This small establishment’s view always overrides over everybody else.
And they massively make use of that power.As I said: As long as it is even possible for a subset of humanity, to control what’s going onto Wikipedia, it can by definition not be the encyclopedia for all of humanity.It’s obvious that to solve this, central servers and admins are out of the question... resulting in a P2P system of cascading trust relationships.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31311780</id>
	<title>Total waste of time</title>
	<author>BradMajors</author>
	<datestamp>1267376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedians administrators don't seem to have a clue about the effects of vandalism.</p><p>The time wasted by humans who's job is solely to revert vandalism is irrelevant.  There are more than enough people who are willing to do this work and if they weren't doing this work they would not be contributing useful content to Wikipedia.</p><p>The negative effects are concentrated on the knowledgeable editors who are adding useful new content.  There may be 5 to 10 persons activietyl adding content to an article.  Each time a change is made to the article each of these editors need to examine the content to determine if it is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedians administrators do n't seem to have a clue about the effects of vandalism.The time wasted by humans who 's job is solely to revert vandalism is irrelevant .
There are more than enough people who are willing to do this work and if they were n't doing this work they would not be contributing useful content to Wikipedia.The negative effects are concentrated on the knowledgeable editors who are adding useful new content .
There may be 5 to 10 persons activietyl adding content to an article .
Each time a change is made to the article each of these editors need to examine the content to determine if it is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedians administrators don't seem to have a clue about the effects of vandalism.The time wasted by humans who's job is solely to revert vandalism is irrelevant.
There are more than enough people who are willing to do this work and if they weren't doing this work they would not be contributing useful content to Wikipedia.The negative effects are concentrated on the knowledgeable editors who are adding useful new content.
There may be 5 to 10 persons activietyl adding content to an article.
Each time a change is made to the article each of these editors need to examine the content to determine if it is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31312474</id>
	<title>it's good at detecting OBVIOUS vandalism</title>
	<author>capoccia</author>
	<datestamp>1267385280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is a subset of vandalism that a bot can be very good at detecting. this bot can never handle every kind of vandalism. for example, adding some subtly false statement to a biographical article, but spelling everything correctly, using correct grammar and adding something that looks like it could be a legitimate source is difficult for even human editors to recognize as vandalism.</p><p>adding 1s everywhere or deleting the entire article is very easy to detect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a subset of vandalism that a bot can be very good at detecting .
this bot can never handle every kind of vandalism .
for example , adding some subtly false statement to a biographical article , but spelling everything correctly , using correct grammar and adding something that looks like it could be a legitimate source is difficult for even human editors to recognize as vandalism.adding 1s everywhere or deleting the entire article is very easy to detect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a subset of vandalism that a bot can be very good at detecting.
this bot can never handle every kind of vandalism.
for example, adding some subtly false statement to a biographical article, but spelling everything correctly, using correct grammar and adding something that looks like it could be a legitimate source is difficult for even human editors to recognize as vandalism.adding 1s everywhere or deleting the entire article is very easy to detect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31317898</id>
	<title>Automated vs waiting for a human</title>
	<author>tawker</author>
	<datestamp>1267465680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As owner of one of the first vandalism reverto bots out there (although pattern speaking, tawkerbot2 didn't do nearly as much as CB) the first take there was if you remove the perceived vandalism almost immediately people don't get any fun out of vandalizing and stop doing it.

There was massive opposition at the offset, but then, as volumes increased, people began to freak when the bot was non operational.  Yes, it had false positives which needed to be dealt with, but if I recall correctly, statistically speaking, it was less than a 2\% false positive rate - and this was on hundreds of thousands of edits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As owner of one of the first vandalism reverto bots out there ( although pattern speaking , tawkerbot2 did n't do nearly as much as CB ) the first take there was if you remove the perceived vandalism almost immediately people do n't get any fun out of vandalizing and stop doing it .
There was massive opposition at the offset , but then , as volumes increased , people began to freak when the bot was non operational .
Yes , it had false positives which needed to be dealt with , but if I recall correctly , statistically speaking , it was less than a 2 \ % false positive rate - and this was on hundreds of thousands of edits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As owner of one of the first vandalism reverto bots out there (although pattern speaking, tawkerbot2 didn't do nearly as much as CB) the first take there was if you remove the perceived vandalism almost immediately people don't get any fun out of vandalizing and stop doing it.
There was massive opposition at the offset, but then, as volumes increased, people began to freak when the bot was non operational.
Yes, it had false positives which needed to be dealt with, but if I recall correctly, statistically speaking, it was less than a 2\% false positive rate - and this was on hundreds of thousands of edits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308890</id>
	<title>a vandalism detector for wikipedia</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1267352220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a vandalism detector on wikipedia is like a lameness detector on slashdot or a shit detector on your asshole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a vandalism detector on wikipedia is like a lameness detector on slashdot or a shit detector on your asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a vandalism detector on wikipedia is like a lameness detector on slashdot or a shit detector on your asshole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31314862</id>
	<title>Re:How about an Admin Abuse Detector?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267453740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the OP.</p><p><i>Anything else you're too lazy to find yourself?</i></p><p>I recognize that voice anywhere; you must be a Wikipedia Admin. I've been editing Wikipedia for years, but didn't know about the second two lists (the first isn't really a list of reversions, but perhaps there's a way to make it work). If I don't, then I suspect many others don't.</p><p>Which brings us back to my point: Those lists need to be part of a system -- an easily accessible, understandable system -- "for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court)." I don't have time to find and study every function, rule, and procedure on Wikipedia that might apply. The overhead of editing is so high -- primarily because of admin abuse -- that I've stopped doing it. The frustration of dealing with people who behave poorly doesn't help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the OP.Anything else you 're too lazy to find yourself ? I recognize that voice anywhere ; you must be a Wikipedia Admin .
I 've been editing Wikipedia for years , but did n't know about the second two lists ( the first is n't really a list of reversions , but perhaps there 's a way to make it work ) .
If I do n't , then I suspect many others do n't.Which brings us back to my point : Those lists need to be part of a system -- an easily accessible , understandable system -- " for non-admins to challenge actions ( without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court ) .
" I do n't have time to find and study every function , rule , and procedure on Wikipedia that might apply .
The overhead of editing is so high -- primarily because of admin abuse -- that I 've stopped doing it .
The frustration of dealing with people who behave poorly does n't help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the OP.Anything else you're too lazy to find yourself?I recognize that voice anywhere; you must be a Wikipedia Admin.
I've been editing Wikipedia for years, but didn't know about the second two lists (the first isn't really a list of reversions, but perhaps there's a way to make it work).
If I don't, then I suspect many others don't.Which brings us back to my point: Those lists need to be part of a system -- an easily accessible, understandable system -- "for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court).
" I don't have time to find and study every function, rule, and procedure on Wikipedia that might apply.
The overhead of editing is so high -- primarily because of admin abuse -- that I've stopped doing it.
The frustration of dealing with people who behave poorly doesn't help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309584</id>
	<title>What counts as vandalism on Wikipedia?</title>
	<author>cptnapalm</author>
	<datestamp>1267357980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ask because I don't know.  I can see turning a page into a screed as vandalism, but that doesn't differ greatly from many of the wikipedia articles that I've read; quite a few of them are overwhelmingly dedicated to hostility to the topic or advocates of the topic.  Earlier today, when I was reading the news, there was a link to the Wikipedia article on the Tea Party movement: well over half of the article was dedicated to quotes from anti-Tea Party people (MSNBC, NYT, LAT, etc.) spouting off hostility to it.</p><p>Is that vandalism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ask because I do n't know .
I can see turning a page into a screed as vandalism , but that does n't differ greatly from many of the wikipedia articles that I 've read ; quite a few of them are overwhelmingly dedicated to hostility to the topic or advocates of the topic .
Earlier today , when I was reading the news , there was a link to the Wikipedia article on the Tea Party movement : well over half of the article was dedicated to quotes from anti-Tea Party people ( MSNBC , NYT , LAT , etc .
) spouting off hostility to it.Is that vandalism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ask because I don't know.
I can see turning a page into a screed as vandalism, but that doesn't differ greatly from many of the wikipedia articles that I've read; quite a few of them are overwhelmingly dedicated to hostility to the topic or advocates of the topic.
Earlier today, when I was reading the news, there was a link to the Wikipedia article on the Tea Party movement: well over half of the article was dedicated to quotes from anti-Tea Party people (MSNBC, NYT, LAT, etc.
) spouting off hostility to it.Is that vandalism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309074</id>
	<title>Re:Been done?</title>
	<author>marpot</author>
	<datestamp>1267353780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are very aware of the existing tools (Huggle, Twinkle, and so on). See the links in the above post, and see the links in the resources section of the competition Web page. An accurate vandalism detector will take a lot of research an development, just like spam detectors did...

Why did you stop developing your tool, anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are very aware of the existing tools ( Huggle , Twinkle , and so on ) .
See the links in the above post , and see the links in the resources section of the competition Web page .
An accurate vandalism detector will take a lot of research an development , just like spam detectors did.. . Why did you stop developing your tool , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are very aware of the existing tools (Huggle, Twinkle, and so on).
See the links in the above post, and see the links in the resources section of the competition Web page.
An accurate vandalism detector will take a lot of research an development, just like spam detectors did...

Why did you stop developing your tool, anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309146</id>
	<title>The Art and Science of Wikipedia Vandalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267354260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is an art to Wikipedia abuse. If someone cites a Wikipedia article in some argument they're making, you can always just go to Wikipedia and edit the page so that they're wrong. But that's what a novice Wikipedia vandal does.
<br> <br>
A pro knows to edit the article in a very subtle way, so that it looks like the person has poor reading comprehension. Let's say the person cites a Wikipedia article with a sentence like this, in order to support the argument that Colbert is a Democrat.
<br> <br>
<i>Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Democrat.[12][13]</i>
<br> <br>
This bears the mark of authority, because of the footnote subscripts that are already on it. (We can skip the step where we maliciously relocate them here.)
<br> <br>
A novice might change it to this (correctly preserving the authoritative footnote superscripts):
<br> <br>
<i>Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Republican.[12][13]</i>
<br> <br>
It makes the person appear to be wrong- and the vandalism is obvious- like swapping Eurasia for Eastasia. There's no way he could have misread that.
<br> <br>
But change it to this
<br> <br>
<i>Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert has even been described as a Democrat.[12][13]</i>
<br> <br>
and the person looks not only wrong, but plausibly wrong because it looks like he can't read. That's what makes successful Wikipedia vandalism an art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an art to Wikipedia abuse .
If someone cites a Wikipedia article in some argument they 're making , you can always just go to Wikipedia and edit the page so that they 're wrong .
But that 's what a novice Wikipedia vandal does .
A pro knows to edit the article in a very subtle way , so that it looks like the person has poor reading comprehension .
Let 's say the person cites a Wikipedia article with a sentence like this , in order to support the argument that Colbert is a Democrat .
Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show , Colbert is a self-described Democrat .
[ 12 ] [ 13 ] This bears the mark of authority , because of the footnote subscripts that are already on it .
( We can skip the step where we maliciously relocate them here .
) A novice might change it to this ( correctly preserving the authoritative footnote superscripts ) : Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show , Colbert is a self-described Republican .
[ 12 ] [ 13 ] It makes the person appear to be wrong- and the vandalism is obvious- like swapping Eurasia for Eastasia .
There 's no way he could have misread that .
But change it to this Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show , Colbert has even been described as a Democrat .
[ 12 ] [ 13 ] and the person looks not only wrong , but plausibly wrong because it looks like he ca n't read .
That 's what makes successful Wikipedia vandalism an art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an art to Wikipedia abuse.
If someone cites a Wikipedia article in some argument they're making, you can always just go to Wikipedia and edit the page so that they're wrong.
But that's what a novice Wikipedia vandal does.
A pro knows to edit the article in a very subtle way, so that it looks like the person has poor reading comprehension.
Let's say the person cites a Wikipedia article with a sentence like this, in order to support the argument that Colbert is a Democrat.
Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Democrat.
[12][13]
 
This bears the mark of authority, because of the footnote subscripts that are already on it.
(We can skip the step where we maliciously relocate them here.
)
 
A novice might change it to this (correctly preserving the authoritative footnote superscripts):
 
Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert is a self-described Republican.
[12][13]
 
It makes the person appear to be wrong- and the vandalism is obvious- like swapping Eurasia for Eastasia.
There's no way he could have misread that.
But change it to this
 
Although by his own account he was not particularly political before joining the cast of The Daily Show, Colbert has even been described as a Democrat.
[12][13]
 
and the person looks not only wrong, but plausibly wrong because it looks like he can't read.
That's what makes successful Wikipedia vandalism an art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309196</id>
	<title>Re:Been done?</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1267354740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel? Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already? Why not just improve on it instead?</p></div><p>Sometimes it's more practical to start from scratch. You might want to change the design from the ground up, and to do that with an already working bot would not be as constructive. The current bots are probably very well tweaked and polished, for their given design and methods of spam detection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel ?
Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already ?
Why not just improve on it instead ? Sometimes it 's more practical to start from scratch .
You might want to change the design from the ground up , and to do that with an already working bot would not be as constructive .
The current bots are probably very well tweaked and polished , for their given design and methods of spam detection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel?
Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already?
Why not just improve on it instead?Sometimes it's more practical to start from scratch.
You might want to change the design from the ground up, and to do that with an already working bot would not be as constructive.
The current bots are probably very well tweaked and polished, for their given design and methods of spam detection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31311238</id>
	<title>Re:What counts as vandalism on Wikipedia?</title>
	<author>WolfWithoutAClause</author>
	<datestamp>1267370520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wikipedia is trying to fairly reflect the reliable sources multiple positions so including 'spouting off' is not necessarily vandalism, if the neutral point of view of the reliable sources is that there is some hostility to the tea party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wikipedia is trying to fairly reflect the reliable sources multiple positions so including 'spouting off ' is not necessarily vandalism , if the neutral point of view of the reliable sources is that there is some hostility to the tea party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wikipedia is trying to fairly reflect the reliable sources multiple positions so including 'spouting off' is not necessarily vandalism, if the neutral point of view of the reliable sources is that there is some hostility to the tea party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309330</id>
	<title>A good step forward</title>
	<author>allo</author>
	<datestamp>1267355520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it stops Deletionists from deleting well-intended edits. Better a short article than no article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it stops Deletionists from deleting well-intended edits .
Better a short article than no article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it stops Deletionists from deleting well-intended edits.
Better a short article than no article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308772</id>
	<title>Wikipedia needs a Flash editor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267351320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.</p><p>Harry Potter:<br>"The novels revolve around [[Harry Potter (character)|Harry Potter]], an orphan who discovers at the age of eleven that he is a wizard.{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2000/books/reviews/07/14/review.potter.goblet/|title=Review: Gladly drinking from Rowling's 'Goblet of Fire'|date=14 July 2000|publisher=CNN|accessdate=28 September 2008}} Wizard ability is inborn, but children are sent to wizarding school to learn the magical skills necessary to succeed in the [[wizarding world]]. Harry is invited to attend the boarding school called [[Hogwarts|Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry]]. Each book chronicles one year in Harry's life, and most of the events take place at Hogwarts.{{cite news|url=http://www.newsobserver.com/308/story/639602.html|title=Harry Potter, Hogwarts and Home|last=Frauenfelder|first=David|date=17 July 2007|publisher=The News &amp; Observer Publishing Company |accessdate=29 September 2008}} As he struggles through adolescence, Harry learns to overcome many magical, social and emotional hurdles.{{cite web|url=http://www.southflorida.com/movies/sfe-potter-synopses,0,6711375.story|title=Plot summaries for the first five Potter books|last=Hajela|first=Deepti|date=14 July 2005|publisher=SouthFlorida.com|accessdate=29 September 2008}}"</p><p>"=== Supplementary works ===<br>{{see also|J. K. Rowling#Philanthropy|l1=J. K. Rowling: Philanthropy}}</p><p>Rowling has expanded the [[Harry Potter universe]] with several short books produced for various charities.{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6903111.stm|title=How Rowling conjured up millions|publisher=BBC|accessdate=7 September 2008 | date=19 July 2007}}{{cite web|url=http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/1198169/used/Comic\%20Relief\%20:\%20Quidditch\%20through\%20the\%20ages|title=Comic Relief : Quidditch through the ages|publisher=Albris|accessdate=7 September 2008}} In 2001, she released ''[[Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them]]'' (a purported Hogwarts textbook) and ''[[Quidditch Through the Ages]]'' (a book Harry read for fun). Proceeds from the sale of these two books benefitted the charity [[Comic Relief]].{{cite web|url=http://www.comicrelief.com/stuff-to-buy/harrys-books/the-money/|title=The Money|publisher=Comic Relief|accessdate=25 October 2007}} In 2007, Rowling composed seven handwritten copies of ''[[The Tales of Beedle the Bard]]'', a collection of fairy tales that is featured in the final novel, one of which was auctioned to raise money for the Children's High Level Group, a fund for mentally disabled children in poor countries. The book was published internationally on 4 December 2008.{{cite web|title=<br>JK Rowling Fairy Tales To Go On Sale For Charity|work=ANI|year=2008|url=http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2008/harry-potter-jk-rowling-charity-020808.html<br>|accessdate=2 August 2008}}{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7142656.stm|title=JK Rowling book fetches &pound;2m|date= 13 December 2007|publisher=BBC|accessdate=13 December 2007}}{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?docId=1000137983|title=Amazon purchase book|publisher=Amazon.com Inc|accessdate=14 December 2007}} Rowling also wrote an 800-word [[Harry Potter prequel|prequel]] in 2008 as part of a fundraiser organised by the bookseller [[Waterstones]].{{cite web|title=Rowling pens Potter prequel for charities|author=Williams, Rachel |year=2008|publisher=''[[The Guardian]]''|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/29/harrypotter.jkjoannekathleenrowling}} Retrieved on 31 May 2008.</p><p>== Structure and genre ==<br>{{see also|Harry Potter influences and analogues}}</p><p>The ''Harry Potter'' novels fall within the genre of [[fantasy literature]]; however, in many respects they are also [[bildungsroman]]s, or [[coming of age]] novels.{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0OON/is\_1\_24/ai\_107896944|title=Wizards and wainscots: generic structures and genre themes in the Harry Potter series|last=Anne Le Lievre|first=Kerrie|ye</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia , the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.Harry Potter : " The novels revolve around [ [ Harry Potter ( character ) | Harry Potter ] ] , an orphan who discovers at the age of eleven that he is a wizard .
{ { cite web | url = http : //edition.cnn.com/2000/books/reviews/07/14/review.potter.goblet/ | title = Review : Gladly drinking from Rowling 's 'Goblet of Fire ' | date = 14 July 2000 | publisher = CNN | accessdate = 28 September 2008 } } Wizard ability is inborn , but children are sent to wizarding school to learn the magical skills necessary to succeed in the [ [ wizarding world ] ] .
Harry is invited to attend the boarding school called [ [ Hogwarts | Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry ] ] .
Each book chronicles one year in Harry 's life , and most of the events take place at Hogwarts .
{ { cite news | url = http : //www.newsobserver.com/308/story/639602.html | title = Harry Potter , Hogwarts and Home | last = Frauenfelder | first = David | date = 17 July 2007 | publisher = The News &amp; Observer Publishing Company | accessdate = 29 September 2008 } } As he struggles through adolescence , Harry learns to overcome many magical , social and emotional hurdles .
{ { cite web | url = http : //www.southflorida.com/movies/sfe-potter-synopses,0,6711375.story | title = Plot summaries for the first five Potter books | last = Hajela | first = Deepti | date = 14 July 2005 | publisher = SouthFlorida.com | accessdate = 29 September 2008 } } " " = = = Supplementary works = = = { { see also | J .
K. Rowling # Philanthropy | l1 = J .
K. Rowling : Philanthropy } } Rowling has expanded the [ [ Harry Potter universe ] ] with several short books produced for various charities .
{ { cite web | url = http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6903111.stm | title = How Rowling conjured up millions | publisher = BBC | accessdate = 7 September 2008 | date = 19 July 2007 } } { { cite web | url = http : //www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/1198169/used/Comic \ % 20Relief \ % 20 : \ % 20Quidditch \ % 20through \ % 20the \ % 20ages | title = Comic Relief : Quidditch through the ages | publisher = Albris | accessdate = 7 September 2008 } } In 2001 , she released ' ' [ [ Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them ] ] ' ' ( a purported Hogwarts textbook ) and ' ' [ [ Quidditch Through the Ages ] ] ' ' ( a book Harry read for fun ) .
Proceeds from the sale of these two books benefitted the charity [ [ Comic Relief ] ] .
{ { cite web | url = http : //www.comicrelief.com/stuff-to-buy/harrys-books/the-money/ | title = The Money | publisher = Comic Relief | accessdate = 25 October 2007 } } In 2007 , Rowling composed seven handwritten copies of ' ' [ [ The Tales of Beedle the Bard ] ] ' ' , a collection of fairy tales that is featured in the final novel , one of which was auctioned to raise money for the Children 's High Level Group , a fund for mentally disabled children in poor countries .
The book was published internationally on 4 December 2008 .
{ { cite web | title = JK Rowling Fairy Tales To Go On Sale For Charity | work = ANI | year = 2008 | url = http : //living.oneindia.in/insync/2008/harry-potter-jk-rowling-charity-020808.html | accessdate = 2 August 2008 } } { { cite news | url = http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7142656.stm | title = JK Rowling book fetches   2m | date = 13 December 2007 | publisher = BBC | accessdate = 13 December 2007 } } { { cite web | url = http : //www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html ? docId = 1000137983 | title = Amazon purchase book | publisher = Amazon.com Inc | accessdate = 14 December 2007 } } Rowling also wrote an 800-word [ [ Harry Potter prequel | prequel ] ] in 2008 as part of a fundraiser organised by the bookseller [ [ Waterstones ] ] .
{ { cite web | title = Rowling pens Potter prequel for charities | author = Williams , Rachel | year = 2008 | publisher = ' ' [ [ The Guardian ] ] ' ' | url = http : //www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/29/harrypotter.jkjoannekathleenrowling } } Retrieved on 31 May 2008. = = Structure and genre = = { { see also | Harry Potter influences and analogues } } The ''Harry Potter' ' novels fall within the genre of [ [ fantasy literature ] ] ; however , in many respects they are also [ [ bildungsroman ] ] s , or [ [ coming of age ] ] novels .
{ { cite web | url = http : //findarticles.com/p/articles/mi \ _m0OON/is \ _1 \ _24/ai \ _107896944 | title = Wizards and wainscots : generic structures and genre themes in the Harry Potter series | last = Anne Le Lievre | first = Kerrie | ye</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.Harry Potter:"The novels revolve around [[Harry Potter (character)|Harry Potter]], an orphan who discovers at the age of eleven that he is a wizard.
{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2000/books/reviews/07/14/review.potter.goblet/|title=Review: Gladly drinking from Rowling's 'Goblet of Fire'|date=14 July 2000|publisher=CNN|accessdate=28 September 2008}} Wizard ability is inborn, but children are sent to wizarding school to learn the magical skills necessary to succeed in the [[wizarding world]].
Harry is invited to attend the boarding school called [[Hogwarts|Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry]].
Each book chronicles one year in Harry's life, and most of the events take place at Hogwarts.
{{cite news|url=http://www.newsobserver.com/308/story/639602.html|title=Harry Potter, Hogwarts and Home|last=Frauenfelder|first=David|date=17 July 2007|publisher=The News &amp; Observer Publishing Company |accessdate=29 September 2008}} As he struggles through adolescence, Harry learns to overcome many magical, social and emotional hurdles.
{{cite web|url=http://www.southflorida.com/movies/sfe-potter-synopses,0,6711375.story|title=Plot summaries for the first five Potter books|last=Hajela|first=Deepti|date=14 July 2005|publisher=SouthFlorida.com|accessdate=29 September 2008}}""=== Supplementary works ==={{see also|J.
K. Rowling#Philanthropy|l1=J.
K. Rowling: Philanthropy}}Rowling has expanded the [[Harry Potter universe]] with several short books produced for various charities.
{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6903111.stm|title=How Rowling conjured up millions|publisher=BBC|accessdate=7 September 2008 | date=19 July 2007}}{{cite web|url=http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/1198169/used/Comic\%20Relief\%20:\%20Quidditch\%20through\%20the\%20ages|title=Comic Relief : Quidditch through the ages|publisher=Albris|accessdate=7 September 2008}} In 2001, she released ''[[Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them]]'' (a purported Hogwarts textbook) and ''[[Quidditch Through the Ages]]'' (a book Harry read for fun).
Proceeds from the sale of these two books benefitted the charity [[Comic Relief]].
{{cite web|url=http://www.comicrelief.com/stuff-to-buy/harrys-books/the-money/|title=The Money|publisher=Comic Relief|accessdate=25 October 2007}} In 2007, Rowling composed seven handwritten copies of ''[[The Tales of Beedle the Bard]]'', a collection of fairy tales that is featured in the final novel, one of which was auctioned to raise money for the Children's High Level Group, a fund for mentally disabled children in poor countries.
The book was published internationally on 4 December 2008.
{{cite web|title=JK Rowling Fairy Tales To Go On Sale For Charity|work=ANI|year=2008|url=http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2008/harry-potter-jk-rowling-charity-020808.html|accessdate=2 August 2008}}{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7142656.stm|title=JK Rowling book fetches £2m|date= 13 December 2007|publisher=BBC|accessdate=13 December 2007}}{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?docId=1000137983|title=Amazon purchase book|publisher=Amazon.com Inc|accessdate=14 December 2007}} Rowling also wrote an 800-word [[Harry Potter prequel|prequel]] in 2008 as part of a fundraiser organised by the bookseller [[Waterstones]].
{{cite web|title=Rowling pens Potter prequel for charities|author=Williams, Rachel |year=2008|publisher=''[[The Guardian]]''|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/29/harrypotter.jkjoannekathleenrowling}} Retrieved on 31 May 2008.== Structure and genre =={{see also|Harry Potter influences and analogues}}The ''Harry Potter'' novels fall within the genre of [[fantasy literature]]; however, in many respects they are also [[bildungsroman]]s, or [[coming of age]] novels.
{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m0OON/is\_1\_24/ai\_107896944|title=Wizards and wainscots: generic structures and genre themes in the Harry Potter series|last=Anne Le Lievre|first=Kerrie|ye</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309524</id>
	<title>If you want to stop 'vandalism'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267357440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sack William Connolley.</p><p>That eco-terrorist has vandalised more climate-related pages (5500+) then the rest of the vandals put together.<br>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sack William Connolley.That eco-terrorist has vandalised more climate-related pages ( 5500 + ) then the rest of the vandals put together.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sack William Connolley.That eco-terrorist has vandalised more climate-related pages (5500+) then the rest of the vandals put together.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308834</id>
	<title>Re:Existing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267351740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mostly edits deemed to be fursecution</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mostly edits deemed to be fursecution</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mostly edits deemed to be fursecution</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310208</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia needs a Flash editor</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1267361820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.
[---]
I am convinced that the current state of affairs is a conscious choice. The way to maximise 'insider power' and minimize 'outsider power' is to make editing as hard as possible, and the rules and traditions needed not to be revoked as many as possible.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes.  That was also the main driving force behind RUNOFF, troff, TeX, LaTeX, HTML and all other
non-WYSIWYG systems back into the 1960s. It's a conspiracy.
</p><p>
Seriously: no. It's just that it's the easiest system to work with, unless you are too lazy to
learn a little bit of syntax.
The HP text you quoted looks bad because (a) they didn't use line breaks to make the code readable
and (b) OK, the system with citations inline in the text sucks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia , the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass .
[ --- ] I am convinced that the current state of affairs is a conscious choice .
The way to maximise 'insider power ' and minimize 'outsider power ' is to make editing as hard as possible , and the rules and traditions needed not to be revoked as many as possible.Yes .
That was also the main driving force behind RUNOFF , troff , TeX , LaTeX , HTML and all other non-WYSIWYG systems back into the 1960s .
It 's a conspiracy .
Seriously : no .
It 's just that it 's the easiest system to work with , unless you are too lazy to learn a little bit of syntax .
The HP text you quoted looks bad because ( a ) they did n't use line breaks to make the code readable and ( b ) OK , the system with citations inline in the text sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.
[---]
I am convinced that the current state of affairs is a conscious choice.
The way to maximise 'insider power' and minimize 'outsider power' is to make editing as hard as possible, and the rules and traditions needed not to be revoked as many as possible.Yes.
That was also the main driving force behind RUNOFF, troff, TeX, LaTeX, HTML and all other
non-WYSIWYG systems back into the 1960s.
It's a conspiracy.
Seriously: no.
It's just that it's the easiest system to work with, unless you are too lazy to
learn a little bit of syntax.
The HP text you quoted looks bad because (a) they didn't use line breaks to make the code readable
and (b) OK, the system with citations inline in the text sucks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309110</id>
	<title>quite a bit of work on this</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1267354020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the problem is tantalizingly easy to frame as a standard data-mining or machine-learning problem, albeit with some quirks, there's quite a lot of work from a lot of research groups that seems to be looking at it. Some examples: <a href="http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1963&amp;context=cis\_reports" title="upenn.edu">one</a> [upenn.edu], <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12587729667345742434&amp;hl=en&amp;as\_sdt=2000" title="google.com">two</a> [google.com], <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5092274457613549052&amp;hl=en&amp;as\_sdt=2000" title="google.com">three</a> [google.com], <a href="http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/" title="ucsc.edu">four</a> [ucsc.edu], <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0700" title="arxiv.org">five</a> [arxiv.org], <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15378952002474681713&amp;hl=en&amp;as\_sdt=2000" title="google.com">six</a> [google.com], <a href="http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1571941.1572146" title="acm.org">seven</a> [acm.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the problem is tantalizingly easy to frame as a standard data-mining or machine-learning problem , albeit with some quirks , there 's quite a lot of work from a lot of research groups that seems to be looking at it .
Some examples : one [ upenn.edu ] , two [ google.com ] , three [ google.com ] , four [ ucsc.edu ] , five [ arxiv.org ] , six [ google.com ] , seven [ acm.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the problem is tantalizingly easy to frame as a standard data-mining or machine-learning problem, albeit with some quirks, there's quite a lot of work from a lot of research groups that seems to be looking at it.
Some examples: one [upenn.edu], two [google.com], three [google.com], four [ucsc.edu], five [arxiv.org], six [google.com], seven [acm.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309704</id>
	<title>nuances and language mechanisms galore</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1267358880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as you start trusting a vandalism detector over manual monitoring a lot of stuff will start to slip through, gets through the news, then the detector won't be trusted any longer. It will have a short life but will be interesting to watch.</p><p>Sew m@ny things that can bee done to bypass mechanisms. Even simple euphemisms like cleaning the old rifle <a href="http://images.clipartof.com/small/5039-Man-Cleaning-Inside-The-Barrel-Of-His-Unloaded-Rifle-Gun-Clipart.jpg" title="clipartof.com">http://images.clipartof.com/small/5039-Man-Cleaning-Inside-The-Barrel-Of-His-Unloaded-Rifle-Gun-Clipart.jpg</a> [clipartof.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...are sure to slip through. There are so many language mechanisms that can be used to fool automated tools, but that will be immediately recognized by people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as you start trusting a vandalism detector over manual monitoring a lot of stuff will start to slip through , gets through the news , then the detector wo n't be trusted any longer .
It will have a short life but will be interesting to watch.Sew m @ ny things that can bee done to bypass mechanisms .
Even simple euphemisms like cleaning the old rifle http : //images.clipartof.com/small/5039-Man-Cleaning-Inside-The-Barrel-Of-His-Unloaded-Rifle-Gun-Clipart.jpg [ clipartof.com ] ...are sure to slip through .
There are so many language mechanisms that can be used to fool automated tools , but that will be immediately recognized by people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as you start trusting a vandalism detector over manual monitoring a lot of stuff will start to slip through, gets through the news, then the detector won't be trusted any longer.
It will have a short life but will be interesting to watch.Sew m@ny things that can bee done to bypass mechanisms.
Even simple euphemisms like cleaning the old rifle http://images.clipartof.com/small/5039-Man-Cleaning-Inside-The-Barrel-Of-His-Unloaded-Rifle-Gun-Clipart.jpg [clipartof.com] ...are sure to slip through.
There are so many language mechanisms that can be used to fool automated tools, but that will be immediately recognized by people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309792</id>
	<title>Re:Step One</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1267359360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a great deal of evidence to suggest...</p></div><p>And yet you don't include any reference to this supposed evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a great deal of evidence to suggest...And yet you do n't include any reference to this supposed evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a great deal of evidence to suggest...And yet you don't include any reference to this supposed evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760</id>
	<title>Been done?</title>
	<author>Ignorant Aardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1267351200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever posted this clearly isn't aware of the actual work being done in the field.  For instance, I was running an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User\%3AAntiVandalBot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">anti-vandalism bot</a> [wikipedia.org] in 2006, and it wasn't new at the time.  They've gotten gotten much more sophisticated since then.</p><p>Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel?  Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already?  Why not just improve on it instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever posted this clearly is n't aware of the actual work being done in the field .
For instance , I was running an anti-vandalism bot [ wikipedia.org ] in 2006 , and it was n't new at the time .
They 've gotten gotten much more sophisticated since then.Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel ?
Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already ?
Why not just improve on it instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever posted this clearly isn't aware of the actual work being done in the field.
For instance, I was running an anti-vandalism bot [wikipedia.org] in 2006, and it wasn't new at the time.
They've gotten gotten much more sophisticated since then.Why are they so intent on reinventing the wheel?
Do they not even realize that the wheel exists already?
Why not just improve on it instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308714</id>
	<title>Re:Existing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267350840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[[citation needed]]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ [ citation needed ] ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[[citation needed]]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308902</id>
	<title>Re:Existing</title>
	<author>DamonHD</author>
	<datestamp>1267352280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazingly my small sample is to the contrary.</p><p>I fix small errors of syntax/grammar/fact when I run across them, have never created an account, and almost all of my edits seem to stick.</p><p>Rgds</p><p>Damon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazingly my small sample is to the contrary.I fix small errors of syntax/grammar/fact when I run across them , have never created an account , and almost all of my edits seem to stick.RgdsDamon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazingly my small sample is to the contrary.I fix small errors of syntax/grammar/fact when I run across them, have never created an account, and almost all of my edits seem to stick.RgdsDamon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309614</id>
	<title>Think twice before assisting this harmful project.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267358220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This project will place more power in the hands of anonymous, faceless Wikipedia bureaucrats. It is therefore harmful. If Wikipedia bureaucrats are too lazy to review possibly offensive material by hand and instead want a machine to do it for them then MAYBE the world does not need that kind of Wikipedia at all.
</p><p>

If you want to view a Wikipedia administrator drunk with his own sense of self-importance check this out:
</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User\_talk:EdJohnston#Jonathansamuel" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> </a> [wikipedia.org]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User\_talk:EdJohnston#Jonathansamuel" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User\_talk:EdJohnston#Jonathansamuel</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>  </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This project will place more power in the hands of anonymous , faceless Wikipedia bureaucrats .
It is therefore harmful .
If Wikipedia bureaucrats are too lazy to review possibly offensive material by hand and instead want a machine to do it for them then MAYBE the world does not need that kind of Wikipedia at all .
If you want to view a Wikipedia administrator drunk with his own sense of self-importance check this out : [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User \ _talk : EdJohnston # Jonathansamuel [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This project will place more power in the hands of anonymous, faceless Wikipedia bureaucrats.
It is therefore harmful.
If Wikipedia bureaucrats are too lazy to review possibly offensive material by hand and instead want a machine to do it for them then MAYBE the world does not need that kind of Wikipedia at all.
If you want to view a Wikipedia administrator drunk with his own sense of self-importance check this out:
   [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User\_talk:EdJohnston#Jonathansamuel [wikipedia.org]  
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31311348</id>
	<title>Solution: color coding for edits</title>
	<author>nephridium</author>
	<datestamp>1267371660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still think the best solution would be a color coding overlay over the text that would show the reader immediately 1.) how trustworthy the author has been and 2.) how long before the edit has been done (without being reverted). That way it would be easy to see the sections written by reputable authors who have always added useful info and distinguish it from "amendments" that have been entered just a few minutes ago by an anonymous coward.<br> <br>

And for those who do not want to log in to edit, that would be fine too, if the edit stands the test of time it's highly probable that the information entered was good, so over time it will get a similar color "status" as an edit from a reputable author. It would also be easy to see last minute amendments be known authors, and as we all know, should be taken with a (larger than usual) grain of salt, no matter how well known he is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br> <br>

Just add a toggle button to switch between default view and the color coded view.<br> <br>

BTW this system would also works very well for blogs and news sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still think the best solution would be a color coding overlay over the text that would show the reader immediately 1 .
) how trustworthy the author has been and 2 .
) how long before the edit has been done ( without being reverted ) .
That way it would be easy to see the sections written by reputable authors who have always added useful info and distinguish it from " amendments " that have been entered just a few minutes ago by an anonymous coward .
And for those who do not want to log in to edit , that would be fine too , if the edit stands the test of time it 's highly probable that the information entered was good , so over time it will get a similar color " status " as an edit from a reputable author .
It would also be easy to see last minute amendments be known authors , and as we all know , should be taken with a ( larger than usual ) grain of salt , no matter how well known he is ; ) Just add a toggle button to switch between default view and the color coded view .
BTW this system would also works very well for blogs and news sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still think the best solution would be a color coding overlay over the text that would show the reader immediately 1.
) how trustworthy the author has been and 2.
) how long before the edit has been done (without being reverted).
That way it would be easy to see the sections written by reputable authors who have always added useful info and distinguish it from "amendments" that have been entered just a few minutes ago by an anonymous coward.
And for those who do not want to log in to edit, that would be fine too, if the edit stands the test of time it's highly probable that the information entered was good, so over time it will get a similar color "status" as an edit from a reputable author.
It would also be easy to see last minute amendments be known authors, and as we all know, should be taken with a (larger than usual) grain of salt, no matter how well known he is ;) 

Just add a toggle button to switch between default view and the color coded view.
BTW this system would also works very well for blogs and news sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309628</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia needs a Flash editor</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1267358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.</p></div><p>Actually, it's possible to make a wysiwyg editor for Wiki markup in HTML with a little Javascript, there's no need for Flash!</p><p>It's not even hard, I did one for a corporate project in about a week, and I'm by no means an expert at Javascript.</p><p>It's even possible to do a split-screen view where it shows you the markup AND the preview, and the user can edit either.</p><p>The trick is that doing this has a prerequisite: the wiki syntax has to have a nice unambiguous grammar, and you need a parser generator that can emit Javascript parsers for it. At first, I tried to base my wiki grammar on Wikipedia's syntax, but it turns out that it's ambigious and difficult to parse, so I made one from scratch, and used <a href="http://www.antlr.org/" title="antlr.org">ANTLR</a> [antlr.org] to generate a parser for it. The actual project used the C# parser (it was for an ASP.NET web site), but I experimented with real-time parsing in web pages using the JS parser. It works well, and is fast enough for pages of about 1KB. It would need some clever programming to scale past that, like incremental parsing.</p><p>This wouldn't work for Wikipedia though, because the way it has been written is typical PHP spaghetti code. It relies heavily on repeated "search &amp; replace" operations and regular expressions, which sounds not-too-bad, until you have to figure out the formal grammar or the page object model. It's got layers of crap on top of each other, with no rhyme or reason. For example:</p><p>Both of these are: '''bold''' &lt;b&gt;bold&lt;/b&gt;</p><p>You can have nested code too: ''italic &lt;b&gt;italic-bold''bold&lt;b&gt;</p><p>This complex mess of Wiki markup, legacy HTML markup, and some XML-like elements makes parsing Wikipedia a royal pain. The nested syntax is especially nasty. Everyone else with any sense is moving toward XHTML-like syntax, where open tags have to be closed in a strict reverse sequence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia , the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.Actually , it 's possible to make a wysiwyg editor for Wiki markup in HTML with a little Javascript , there 's no need for Flash ! It 's not even hard , I did one for a corporate project in about a week , and I 'm by no means an expert at Javascript.It 's even possible to do a split-screen view where it shows you the markup AND the preview , and the user can edit either.The trick is that doing this has a prerequisite : the wiki syntax has to have a nice unambiguous grammar , and you need a parser generator that can emit Javascript parsers for it .
At first , I tried to base my wiki grammar on Wikipedia 's syntax , but it turns out that it 's ambigious and difficult to parse , so I made one from scratch , and used ANTLR [ antlr.org ] to generate a parser for it .
The actual project used the C # parser ( it was for an ASP.NET web site ) , but I experimented with real-time parsing in web pages using the JS parser .
It works well , and is fast enough for pages of about 1KB .
It would need some clever programming to scale past that , like incremental parsing.This would n't work for Wikipedia though , because the way it has been written is typical PHP spaghetti code .
It relies heavily on repeated " search &amp; replace " operations and regular expressions , which sounds not-too-bad , until you have to figure out the formal grammar or the page object model .
It 's got layers of crap on top of each other , with no rhyme or reason .
For example : Both of these are : '''bold'' ' boldYou can have nested code too : ''italic italic-bold''boldThis complex mess of Wiki markup , legacy HTML markup , and some XML-like elements makes parsing Wikipedia a royal pain .
The nested syntax is especially nasty .
Everyone else with any sense is moving toward XHTML-like syntax , where open tags have to be closed in a strict reverse sequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - in my ass.Actually, it's possible to make a wysiwyg editor for Wiki markup in HTML with a little Javascript, there's no need for Flash!It's not even hard, I did one for a corporate project in about a week, and I'm by no means an expert at Javascript.It's even possible to do a split-screen view where it shows you the markup AND the preview, and the user can edit either.The trick is that doing this has a prerequisite: the wiki syntax has to have a nice unambiguous grammar, and you need a parser generator that can emit Javascript parsers for it.
At first, I tried to base my wiki grammar on Wikipedia's syntax, but it turns out that it's ambigious and difficult to parse, so I made one from scratch, and used ANTLR [antlr.org] to generate a parser for it.
The actual project used the C# parser (it was for an ASP.NET web site), but I experimented with real-time parsing in web pages using the JS parser.
It works well, and is fast enough for pages of about 1KB.
It would need some clever programming to scale past that, like incremental parsing.This wouldn't work for Wikipedia though, because the way it has been written is typical PHP spaghetti code.
It relies heavily on repeated "search &amp; replace" operations and regular expressions, which sounds not-too-bad, until you have to figure out the formal grammar or the page object model.
It's got layers of crap on top of each other, with no rhyme or reason.
For example:Both of these are: '''bold''' boldYou can have nested code too: ''italic italic-bold''boldThis complex mess of Wiki markup, legacy HTML markup, and some XML-like elements makes parsing Wikipedia a royal pain.
The nested syntax is especially nasty.
Everyone else with any sense is moving toward XHTML-like syntax, where open tags have to be closed in a strict reverse sequence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310226</id>
	<title>Re:How about an Admin Abuse Detector?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267361940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How about a log of each admin's activities, including reversions, bans, etc, and a way for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court).</i></p><p>Reversions: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>Bans: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>Deletes: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Anything else you're too lazy to find yourself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a log of each admin 's activities , including reversions , bans , etc , and a way for non-admins to challenge actions ( without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court ) .Reversions : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special : Contributions [ wikipedia.org ] Bans : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special : Log/block [ wikipedia.org ] Deletes : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special : Log/delete [ wikipedia.org ] Anything else you 're too lazy to find yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a log of each admin's activities, including reversions, bans, etc, and a way for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court).Reversions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions [wikipedia.org]Bans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block [wikipedia.org]Deletes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete [wikipedia.org]Anything else you're too lazy to find yourself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309350</id>
	<title>The Answer has existed for years</title>
	<author>jhary-a-conel</author>
	<datestamp>1267355760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was just too visionary for its time
<a href="http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com/" title="everytopic...ickens.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com/</a> [everytopic...ickens.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was just too visionary for its time http : //www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com/ [ everytopic...ickens.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was just too visionary for its time
http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com/ [everytopic...ickens.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308804</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267351500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do we tell intent from the resulting content?  Yes, clearly FUCK UR MOM and UR MOM SUCKS COCKS IN HELL are vandalism, but what about misinformed people making edits, is that vandalism?  There is no bad intent there.  What about people that doesn't understand wikipedia making edits that are non neutral.  Is that vandalism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we tell intent from the resulting content ?
Yes , clearly FUCK UR MOM and UR MOM SUCKS COCKS IN HELL are vandalism , but what about misinformed people making edits , is that vandalism ?
There is no bad intent there .
What about people that does n't understand wikipedia making edits that are non neutral .
Is that vandalism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we tell intent from the resulting content?
Yes, clearly FUCK UR MOM and UR MOM SUCKS COCKS IN HELL are vandalism, but what about misinformed people making edits, is that vandalism?
There is no bad intent there.
What about people that doesn't understand wikipedia making edits that are non neutral.
Is that vandalism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309778</id>
	<title>Yeah but what about when it's not vandalism ...</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1267359300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but the truth?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick\_Xenophon&amp;oldid=326486984#As\_federal\_senator" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick\_Xenophon&amp;oldid=326486984#As\_federal\_senator</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but the truth ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ? title = Nick \ _Xenophon&amp;oldid = 326486984 # As \ _federal \ _senator [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but the truth?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick\_Xenophon&amp;oldid=326486984#As\_federal\_senator [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309544</id>
	<title>Re:Step One</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267357680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree.

The worst vandalism on wikipedia is done by self righteous page owners and admins on power trips that hate to be corrected. I used to help out on a number of pages (areas where I am a genuine expert not just someone with an opinion) but having my updates constantly deleted just got too frustrating, now I just make sure people in my field know not to use wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
The worst vandalism on wikipedia is done by self righteous page owners and admins on power trips that hate to be corrected .
I used to help out on a number of pages ( areas where I am a genuine expert not just someone with an opinion ) but having my updates constantly deleted just got too frustrating , now I just make sure people in my field know not to use wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
The worst vandalism on wikipedia is done by self righteous page owners and admins on power trips that hate to be corrected.
I used to help out on a number of pages (areas where I am a genuine expert not just someone with an opinion) but having my updates constantly deleted just got too frustrating, now I just make sure people in my field know not to use wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31313392</id>
	<title>Come on...</title>
	<author>GofG</author>
	<datestamp>1267438740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rogue admins abusing their power? An "in" club?

If you have a problem with an admin, provide evidence (a diff of the admin abusing his power) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests\_for\_comment/User\_conduct#Use\_of\_administrator\_privileges" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org]. Follow the case, argue it out, and the admin will be dealt with.

Every admin is elected in, guys. If you think Wikipedia is important enough that all the scary "rogue admins" are actually doing harm, go become a part of the election process. Anyone can vote, and your opinion matters regardless of how many edits you have, or how many articles you've worked on.

This isn't like America where your vote only matters symbolically. You can stop these evil boogiemen from getting elected, if you want to.

Admins aren't "above" the user. They're just the people who hold onto the brooms. It's the users who make the messes, and the users who point the messes out to the janitors. That's how it was back when I was involved in the community, anyway.

Oh, cept SlimVirgin. She's a fucking fascist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rogue admins abusing their power ?
An " in " club ?
If you have a problem with an admin , provide evidence ( a diff of the admin abusing his power ) here [ wikipedia.org ] .
Follow the case , argue it out , and the admin will be dealt with .
Every admin is elected in , guys .
If you think Wikipedia is important enough that all the scary " rogue admins " are actually doing harm , go become a part of the election process .
Anyone can vote , and your opinion matters regardless of how many edits you have , or how many articles you 've worked on .
This is n't like America where your vote only matters symbolically .
You can stop these evil boogiemen from getting elected , if you want to .
Admins are n't " above " the user .
They 're just the people who hold onto the brooms .
It 's the users who make the messes , and the users who point the messes out to the janitors .
That 's how it was back when I was involved in the community , anyway .
Oh , cept SlimVirgin .
She 's a fucking fascist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rogue admins abusing their power?
An "in" club?
If you have a problem with an admin, provide evidence (a diff of the admin abusing his power) here [wikipedia.org].
Follow the case, argue it out, and the admin will be dealt with.
Every admin is elected in, guys.
If you think Wikipedia is important enough that all the scary "rogue admins" are actually doing harm, go become a part of the election process.
Anyone can vote, and your opinion matters regardless of how many edits you have, or how many articles you've worked on.
This isn't like America where your vote only matters symbolically.
You can stop these evil boogiemen from getting elected, if you want to.
Admins aren't "above" the user.
They're just the people who hold onto the brooms.
It's the users who make the messes, and the users who point the messes out to the janitors.
That's how it was back when I was involved in the community, anyway.
Oh, cept SlimVirgin.
She's a fucking fascist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309398</id>
	<title>Re:Existing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267356240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true.  I fixed a spelling error once - a real one, not one that depends on US/UK spelling differences - and it was reverted almost immediately.  That made me not want to contribute to it any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true .
I fixed a spelling error once - a real one , not one that depends on US/UK spelling differences - and it was reverted almost immediately .
That made me not want to contribute to it any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true.
I fixed a spelling error once - a real one, not one that depends on US/UK spelling differences - and it was reverted almost immediately.
That made me not want to contribute to it any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309734</id>
	<title>Re:Should work. Bogofilter for autotagging emails</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267359000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are also profoundly limited by the published rulesets for particular tools. Take a good look at CRM114 for better filtering: Markovian filtering, fast, and the filtering is generated semi-randomly from the existing data. Tuning your spam to avoid particular filters is extremely difficult, because the filters are not pre-determined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are also profoundly limited by the published rulesets for particular tools .
Take a good look at CRM114 for better filtering : Markovian filtering , fast , and the filtering is generated semi-randomly from the existing data .
Tuning your spam to avoid particular filters is extremely difficult , because the filters are not pre-determined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are also profoundly limited by the published rulesets for particular tools.
Take a good look at CRM114 for better filtering: Markovian filtering, fast, and the filtering is generated semi-randomly from the existing data.
Tuning your spam to avoid particular filters is extremely difficult, because the filters are not pre-determined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660</id>
	<title>Existing</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1267350480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, how their vandalism detector works right now is by automatically reverting any edits done by anonymous editors.</p><p>(And yeah, that's a bit sarcastic, but somewhat true.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , how their vandalism detector works right now is by automatically reverting any edits done by anonymous editors .
( And yeah , that 's a bit sarcastic , but somewhat true .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, how their vandalism detector works right now is by automatically reverting any edits done by anonymous editors.
(And yeah, that's a bit sarcastic, but somewhat true.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31313662</id>
	<title>Re:What counts as vandalism on Wikipedia?</title>
	<author>Slashcrap</author>
	<datestamp>1267442280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people involved in the tea-bagging movement (I know they changed their name once they realised, tough shit) are objectively scum. So it's fine for the article to be negative. Also it helps to increase their paranoia regarding left-wing media conspiracies, and will hopefully bring forward the day when they really do take up arms and subsequently get murdered en-mass by the police &amp; military, which is the optimum outcome in this case.</p><p>What I'm really trying to say is that you sound like another whiny republican/libertarian who is "just asking questions" and I hope you die of something horrible at the first possible opportunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people involved in the tea-bagging movement ( I know they changed their name once they realised , tough shit ) are objectively scum .
So it 's fine for the article to be negative .
Also it helps to increase their paranoia regarding left-wing media conspiracies , and will hopefully bring forward the day when they really do take up arms and subsequently get murdered en-mass by the police &amp; military , which is the optimum outcome in this case.What I 'm really trying to say is that you sound like another whiny republican/libertarian who is " just asking questions " and I hope you die of something horrible at the first possible opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people involved in the tea-bagging movement (I know they changed their name once they realised, tough shit) are objectively scum.
So it's fine for the article to be negative.
Also it helps to increase their paranoia regarding left-wing media conspiracies, and will hopefully bring forward the day when they really do take up arms and subsequently get murdered en-mass by the police &amp; military, which is the optimum outcome in this case.What I'm really trying to say is that you sound like another whiny republican/libertarian who is "just asking questions" and I hope you die of something horrible at the first possible opportunity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31311774</id>
	<title>Vandalize the Vandals??</title>
	<author>draco\_00</author>
	<datestamp>1267376340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares 90\% of the info on those sites are bougus anyway, it's like trying to fix the preputally broken!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares 90 \ % of the info on those sites are bougus anyway , it 's like trying to fix the preputally broken !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares 90\% of the info on those sites are bougus anyway, it's like trying to fix the preputally broken!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309812</id>
	<title>Well-intentioned edits?</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1267359540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are well-intentioned edits on Wikipedia?  Even if there were, how could you tell...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are well-intentioned edits on Wikipedia ?
Even if there were , how could you tell.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are well-intentioned edits on Wikipedia?
Even if there were, how could you tell...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308884</id>
	<title>Step One</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267352160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before any more detectors are rolled out, how about they come up with a workable definition of vandalism? And actually use it fairly, ethically and logically.<br> <br>

There's a great deal of evidence to suggest the current definition of "vandalism," is something a wikiadmin decides he just doesn't like, or disagrees with, or in some way interferes with his power-trip.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before any more detectors are rolled out , how about they come up with a workable definition of vandalism ?
And actually use it fairly , ethically and logically .
There 's a great deal of evidence to suggest the current definition of " vandalism , " is something a wikiadmin decides he just does n't like , or disagrees with , or in some way interferes with his power-trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before any more detectors are rolled out, how about they come up with a workable definition of vandalism?
And actually use it fairly, ethically and logically.
There's a great deal of evidence to suggest the current definition of "vandalism," is something a wikiadmin decides he just doesn't like, or disagrees with, or in some way interferes with his power-trip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308654</id>
	<title>inb4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267350420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's basically a regex for:</p><p>Children are lovely before they get ugly, and learn to do bad stuff.<br>Flowers are pretty before they get shitty, and rot and turn to dust<br>I heard that life is a wheel and you can't make it stop<br>If you try it'll flatten your head<br>It's a circle of shit we're in the middle of it<br>but soon we'll all be dead</p><p>Like everybody else that ever lived before, the things you make fall to the floor<br>and nobody knows how hard you tried, it's been that way since the start of time-<br>There was a caveman that did some amazing things<br>but nobody here gives a fuck<br>And in a thousand years they'll feel the same<br>towards all the things you've done</p><p>[Chorus:]<br>So don't worry what might give you cancer-<br>or stay up nights just wanting answers<br>Its just a crap shoot, but it's mostly crap<br>things start off they're so terrific<br>they'll fuck up it's scientific<br>Entropy, uncertainty won't yield to you</p><p>Love at first sight on a beautiful night and a feeling so divine<br>gets sucked down the toilet cuz something will spoil it<br>with the good times left behind you<br>Don't try to figure out who's at fault<br>powerful forces abound<br>like a twig on a river in the universe<br>tomorrow you'll probably drown</p><p>[Chorus:]<br>So don't worry if it is a tumor -<br>all this will be over sooner<br>Its just a crap shoot, but it's mostly crap<br>things start off they're so terrific<br>they'll fuck up it's scientific<br>Entropy, uncertainty won't yield to you or you</p><p>And all the things that matter most<br>disappear, here's a toast<br>to erosion and corrosion, Altimzers and pain</p><p>Don't try to figure out who's at fault<br>there's powerful forces at play<br>and if you lose your legs and have to beg<br>it's really all the same</p><p>[Chorus:]<br>So don't worry what might give you cancer-<br>or stay up nights just wanting answers<br>Its just a crap shoot, but it's mostly crap<br>things start off they're so terrific<br>they'll fuck up it's scientific<br>Entropy, uncertainty won't yield to you, or you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's basically a regex for : Children are lovely before they get ugly , and learn to do bad stuff.Flowers are pretty before they get shitty , and rot and turn to dustI heard that life is a wheel and you ca n't make it stopIf you try it 'll flatten your headIt 's a circle of shit we 're in the middle of itbut soon we 'll all be deadLike everybody else that ever lived before , the things you make fall to the floorand nobody knows how hard you tried , it 's been that way since the start of time-There was a caveman that did some amazing thingsbut nobody here gives a fuckAnd in a thousand years they 'll feel the sametowards all the things you 've done [ Chorus : ] So do n't worry what might give you cancer-or stay up nights just wanting answersIts just a crap shoot , but it 's mostly crapthings start off they 're so terrificthey 'll fuck up it 's scientificEntropy , uncertainty wo n't yield to youLove at first sight on a beautiful night and a feeling so divinegets sucked down the toilet cuz something will spoil itwith the good times left behind youDo n't try to figure out who 's at faultpowerful forces aboundlike a twig on a river in the universetomorrow you 'll probably drown [ Chorus : ] So do n't worry if it is a tumor -all this will be over soonerIts just a crap shoot , but it 's mostly crapthings start off they 're so terrificthey 'll fuck up it 's scientificEntropy , uncertainty wo n't yield to you or youAnd all the things that matter mostdisappear , here 's a toastto erosion and corrosion , Altimzers and painDo n't try to figure out who 's at faultthere 's powerful forces at playand if you lose your legs and have to begit 's really all the same [ Chorus : ] So do n't worry what might give you cancer-or stay up nights just wanting answersIts just a crap shoot , but it 's mostly crapthings start off they 're so terrificthey 'll fuck up it 's scientificEntropy , uncertainty wo n't yield to you , or you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's basically a regex for:Children are lovely before they get ugly, and learn to do bad stuff.Flowers are pretty before they get shitty, and rot and turn to dustI heard that life is a wheel and you can't make it stopIf you try it'll flatten your headIt's a circle of shit we're in the middle of itbut soon we'll all be deadLike everybody else that ever lived before, the things you make fall to the floorand nobody knows how hard you tried, it's been that way since the start of time-There was a caveman that did some amazing thingsbut nobody here gives a fuckAnd in a thousand years they'll feel the sametowards all the things you've done[Chorus:]So don't worry what might give you cancer-or stay up nights just wanting answersIts just a crap shoot, but it's mostly crapthings start off they're so terrificthey'll fuck up it's scientificEntropy, uncertainty won't yield to youLove at first sight on a beautiful night and a feeling so divinegets sucked down the toilet cuz something will spoil itwith the good times left behind youDon't try to figure out who's at faultpowerful forces aboundlike a twig on a river in the universetomorrow you'll probably drown[Chorus:]So don't worry if it is a tumor -all this will be over soonerIts just a crap shoot, but it's mostly crapthings start off they're so terrificthey'll fuck up it's scientificEntropy, uncertainty won't yield to you or youAnd all the things that matter mostdisappear, here's a toastto erosion and corrosion, Altimzers and painDon't try to figure out who's at faultthere's powerful forces at playand if you lose your legs and have to begit's really all the same[Chorus:]So don't worry what might give you cancer-or stay up nights just wanting answersIts just a crap shoot, but it's mostly crapthings start off they're so terrificthey'll fuck up it's scientificEntropy, uncertainty won't yield to you, or you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308956</id>
	<title>The problem is the edits going live...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267352640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now, you can think of wikipedia as having two columns per article - first is the working article column, with the second being the discussion column.</p><p>What we really need is a third column, one for the currently published version of the article.</p><p>While this may not be popular, it would go a long way to getting rid of the spam, and might even solve some of the other issues facing wikipedia.</p><p>With such a system, you could even assign articles to a subject matter expert as the  editor, who could approve changes, or just incorporate the best changes in.</p><p>Not every article would need to have this, but as articles mature, they could move to this over time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , you can think of wikipedia as having two columns per article - first is the working article column , with the second being the discussion column.What we really need is a third column , one for the currently published version of the article.While this may not be popular , it would go a long way to getting rid of the spam , and might even solve some of the other issues facing wikipedia.With such a system , you could even assign articles to a subject matter expert as the editor , who could approve changes , or just incorporate the best changes in.Not every article would need to have this , but as articles mature , they could move to this over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, you can think of wikipedia as having two columns per article - first is the working article column, with the second being the discussion column.What we really need is a third column, one for the currently published version of the article.While this may not be popular, it would go a long way to getting rid of the spam, and might even solve some of the other issues facing wikipedia.With such a system, you could even assign articles to a subject matter expert as the  editor, who could approve changes, or just incorporate the best changes in.Not every article would need to have this, but as articles mature, they could move to this over time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31311302</id>
	<title>Vandalism Detector Unecessary?</title>
	<author>sixknowspring</author>
	<datestamp>1267371120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my experience with contributing to Wikipedia, and from reading some of the talkback (is that what they're called?) discussions, I don't think there's much need for such a tool; there seems to be an elite class of Wiki users that delete anything that they deem unworthy while giving the most bizarre reasons for doing so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience with contributing to Wikipedia , and from reading some of the talkback ( is that what they 're called ?
) discussions , I do n't think there 's much need for such a tool ; there seems to be an elite class of Wiki users that delete anything that they deem unworthy while giving the most bizarre reasons for doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience with contributing to Wikipedia, and from reading some of the talkback (is that what they're called?
) discussions, I don't think there's much need for such a tool; there seems to be an elite class of Wiki users that delete anything that they deem unworthy while giving the most bizarre reasons for doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309942</id>
	<title>Re:How about an Admin Abuse Detector?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've had many more problems with admin abuse than vandalism. Vandalism is quick and easy to deal with. Admins are the biggest problem in Wikipedia editing; they have no accountability and abuse their power.</p><p>How about a log of each admin's activities, including reversions, bans, etc, and a way for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court).</p></div><p>What are you talking about? All users have logs that track their actions:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo\_Wales<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special\%3ALog&amp;type=&amp;user=Jimbo+Wales&amp;page=&amp;year=&amp;month=-1&amp;tagfilter=</p><p>Actions can be challenged at any point on the talk page or the administrator boards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had many more problems with admin abuse than vandalism .
Vandalism is quick and easy to deal with .
Admins are the biggest problem in Wikipedia editing ; they have no accountability and abuse their power.How about a log of each admin 's activities , including reversions , bans , etc , and a way for non-admins to challenge actions ( without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court ) .What are you talking about ?
All users have logs that track their actions : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special : Contributions/Jimbo \ _Waleshttp : //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ? title = Special \ % 3ALog&amp;type = &amp;user = Jimbo + Wales&amp;page = &amp;year = &amp;month = -1&amp;tagfilter = Actions can be challenged at any point on the talk page or the administrator boards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had many more problems with admin abuse than vandalism.
Vandalism is quick and easy to deal with.
Admins are the biggest problem in Wikipedia editing; they have no accountability and abuse their power.How about a log of each admin's activities, including reversions, bans, etc, and a way for non-admins to challenge actions (without spending countless hours in an appeal process worthy of a federal court).What are you talking about?
All users have logs that track their actions:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo\_Waleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special\%3ALog&amp;type=&amp;user=Jimbo+Wales&amp;page=&amp;year=&amp;month=-1&amp;tagfilter=Actions can be challenged at any point on the talk page or the administrator boards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309078</id>
	<title>Will it detect uneducated editor vandalism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wondered as there seems to be a serious increase in editors updating content that they haven't got a clue about thus seriously damaging Wikipedia....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondered as there seems to be a serious increase in editors updating content that they have n't got a clue about thus seriously damaging Wikipedia... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondered as there seems to be a serious increase in editors updating content that they haven't got a clue about thus seriously damaging Wikipedia....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308850</id>
	<title>Should work. Bogofilter for autotagging emails</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267351860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bayesian statistics are an interesting thing. Mwhwhwhwhaaaa. Who thought they would say that about stats?</p><p>Anyway. you can tell spam with a remarkably high degree of accuracy... Guess what. You can tell "Important" and "friends" emails with a similar degree of accuracy (you define what's important or who are friends). No offence to most vandals (of any type), but usually they are complete fuckwits. I suspect they and what they write are probably even more predictable than spammers.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bayesian statistics are an interesting thing .
Mwhwhwhwhaaaa. Who thought they would say that about stats ? Anyway .
you can tell spam with a remarkably high degree of accuracy... Guess what .
You can tell " Important " and " friends " emails with a similar degree of accuracy ( you define what 's important or who are friends ) .
No offence to most vandals ( of any type ) , but usually they are complete fuckwits .
I suspect they and what they write are probably even more predictable than spammers .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bayesian statistics are an interesting thing.
Mwhwhwhwhaaaa. Who thought they would say that about stats?Anyway.
you can tell spam with a remarkably high degree of accuracy... Guess what.
You can tell "Important" and "friends" emails with a similar degree of accuracy (you define what's important or who are friends).
No offence to most vandals (of any type), but usually they are complete fuckwits.
I suspect they and what they write are probably even more predictable than spammers.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31311238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31312194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31313662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31314862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1946216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31312474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31314862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31312194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31310208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31308850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31313662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31311238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1946216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1946216.31309424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
