| rdfs:comment
| - Vandalism is an obvious and intentional act to deprive an article in the main article space of the quality of its content. Vandalism can include, though not be limited to, the following types of acts: 1.
* Adding offensive language, either to the text or title of an article. This one's a no-brainer. Randomly swear on a page, and you can expect an immediate ban, no questions asked, no warnings given. 2.
* Introducing spam onto a page. Again, no-brainer. If you put an advertisement or a load of nonsensical text on a page, expect for your editing powers to be swiftly curtailed. 3.
* Removing all content from pages. If you delete all content from a page and then press "publish", you've "blanked" the page — and you'll probably be blocked from editing, in most cases. It can be done
|
| abstract
| - Vandalism is an obvious and intentional act to deprive an article in the main article space of the quality of its content. Vandalism can include, though not be limited to, the following types of acts: 1.
* Adding offensive language, either to the text or title of an article. This one's a no-brainer. Randomly swear on a page, and you can expect an immediate ban, no questions asked, no warnings given. 2.
* Introducing spam onto a page. Again, no-brainer. If you put an advertisement or a load of nonsensical text on a page, expect for your editing powers to be swiftly curtailed. 3.
* Removing all content from pages. If you delete all content from a page and then press "publish", you've "blanked" the page — and you'll probably be blocked from editing, in most cases. It can be done accidentally, though, so if you notice you've blanked a page unintentionally, please quickly "undo" your actions or ask for an admin to help you. If administrators can't see evidence that you've tried to reverse the blanking, then they will have no choice but to assume it was intentional. People who blank pages may well be blocked without warning, especially if it appears that they are blanking multiple pages in a short amount of time. 4.
* Deliberately editing text within an article so as to include obvious falsehoods. We don't mean here honest mistakes born of faulty research or mis-remembered facts, like "The Fifth Doctor was played by Peter Davidson." We mean obvious and flagrant falsehoods that can't possibly be defended, like "The Fifth Doctor was played by Ken Dodd, whose well-noticed Hamlet wowed audiences in 1923." 5.
* Interjecting of authorial opinion into an article. This is an encyclopaedia. It's completely inappropriate for our main articles to bear your opinion. Statements like, "The Fifth Doctor was played by Peter Davison — who was totally dull and far too human" are vandalistic, as they destroy the objectivity we're seeking to create here. In general, we try to adhere to the Wikipedia standard of a neutral point of view. 6.
* Drastically altering the layout of a page. This type of vandalism is far more subjective than the ones above, however. There are cases where radical changes of layout are honest attempts to improve the way the wiki, as a whole, looks. Changing the size of a picture in an infobox, for example, is not in itself an act of vandalism. Removing an infobox is not in itself an act of vandalism. However, if you repeatedly change the size of an infobox pic, after an admin has advised you of the size standards required to give the site a consistent look, your actions could well be seen as vandalism. Likewise, removing an infobox from a story page is almost always an unambiguous act of vandalism, while the removal of an infobox from a page with one line of text on it might not be considered vandalism. This sort of "graphic design vandalism" is much harder to define, but it comes down to deliberately changing a page's layout against the site's design ethos. In general, it's always better to ask an administrator before changing any of the graphical elements on a page.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)