for reverting the repeated insertions of a creationist. I'm wondering whether I should just quit.

__________________
I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge?

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

You are not going to win against them. They are too entrenched in their beliefs to consider any other possibilities.
When it comes to bailing with a bucket or praying for the leak to quit, they will bail. But then they will attribute their success to a higher power, not muscle and brains.
I have a brother in-law (almost) who believes he is almost the second coming. He has trouble keeping steady work due to his overbearing personality. Every thing is a test of his faith, according to him. Even his current stint behind bars. All you can do is let keep their heads buried in the sand and hope the sand is not in your yard. Teach your kids to have an open mind.

I've done some modest editing in Wikipedia but don't really know all the ins and outs. Is there no way to "flag" a suspect article or do something similar? I am afraid that if Wikipedia allows science illiterates to modify articles written by PhDs and other specialists in their fields, then promising as it seems, Wikipedia will lose credibility, followed by a loss of traffic, followed by a loss of revenue, followed by its ultimate demise. Why don't they just hire some people to moderate the site and review the submissions? Jeez....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

There is a "three revert rule" to prevent edit wars--I think the idea is that before you get to three reverts in some time period (day? I forget) it goes to the discussion page, then possibly arbitration. Of course, if the other person reverted 3 times, you could report him--but check the exact wording of the rules first. I've requested and had some people blocked, not for this particular one, but for repeated, more-blatant vandalism--the admins prefer the rules be legitimately broken and various remedy processes followed before being dragged in.

No process can be perfect--but this one seems to result in 99.9% right pages.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

Don't bother with Wikipedia. It is being overtaken by mobs with agendas, who mark their territory on certain pages to maintain a bias. I think it would be an interesting social study to map out which online tribes command which territories on Wikipedia, how they defend them and attack other tribes.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

Huh. How would one go about doing that?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Hi, parallaxicality,

tdvance is correct, the 3RR rule is an official policy, the highest level in the rather chaotic rulebook
governing (more or less) user conduct.

If you want to try to help out with page patrol at Wikipedia, the places to report infractions of particular policies seem to be:

• NPOV Noticeboard, e.g. to report a user inserting biased editorial comments into an article on say relativity theory,
• NOR Noticeboard, e.g. to report a user writing an article about his own crackpot theory,
• Fringe Theories Noticeboard, e.g. to report users promoting crackpot theories,
• COI Noticeboard[/ur], e.g. for someone writing his own wikibiography or writing a Wikipedia article portraying his crackpot "invention" as a valuable device,
• RS Noticeboard, to report e.g. a user citing a "fringe website" as evidence of some claim running contrary to mainstream science,
• Arbcom Enforcement Noticeboard, e.g. to report a user who has been sanctioned by the ArbCom and who is violating the terms of the sanction,
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...pets]Sockcheck page, to report suspected sockpuppets of permabanned users

The clunky "wikipolice" system was reorganized after I left (a coincidence, I presume) and some attempt was made to take account of internal criticisms which had been leveled by myself and many others. Some here at BAUT say the new system is working well; I am much more sceptical but encourage anyone with the stomach for page patrol to give it a shot!

Some organizations which you may wish to join:

• WikiProject Physics; their talk page often discusses longstanding problem editors,
  WikiProject Rational Skepticism
• WikiProject Science
• other science WikiProjects

If you give us a link to the specific article wher the 3RR rule was invoked, I might be able to offer more specific advice.

The creationist subcommunity at Wikipedia is very active, as you might expect, and seems to outnumber the biologists, as you might expect, but nonetheless their activities have often been frowned upon by the power structure. I seem to have lost the links to some creationism related RfAs which suggest that not everything goes their way. But from time to time the power structure likes to go the other way, just to demonstrate their own neutrality ;-/

So don't be too discouraged if you want to try page patrol. If we could get large numbers of BAUTians to regularly spend some time at this, I think the existing system might become much more effective. It's important not to invest too much time, though, because that way lies madness and the kind of frustation (at the madness of the notion of trying to write an "encyclopedia" in which anyone's opinion is held to be "as valuable" as the most knowlegeable experts) which can lead to rules vios.

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!

I just checked Wikipedia, made a few deductions and guessed who was who and what was what--the creationist was blocked for the same length of time (24 hours) for the same thing (3 revert rule violation).

Think of it as a cops-eye in Niven's Cloak of Anarchy--raise a hand against another and both assaulter and victim are knocked out for a period of time. It's really to slow down anarchy in Wikipedia (a semi-automatic process--humans do it, but routinely regardless of merit).

I say, don't give up on WP.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

I've been slowly working my way through Wiki correcting all the errors in the Mahler articles.

Haven't run into any problems so far...






PS: I didn't say anything, Murphy!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

You have to be careful with the three-revert rule. I know it can be annoying when you know that you're right and the other guy is wrong. But if you were removing creationist stuff, don't worry too much. Even if you're not there to do it, someone else is likely to remove it.

For future reference: always leave an edit summary explaining why you've deleted an editor's contribution, and, when an editor keeps making erroneus additions, try to discuss the matter with him first, either in the Talk Page (if he remembers to read it), or in his user page, or via edit summary.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

I've found if I don't read the comments section in any wiki article it helps to stave off age induced misanthropy.

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

Wikipedia used to be decent, and worthwhile.

Used to be.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

"It used to be about the music!..." (Points for the reference...)

I've been a bit put off from it lately, too. Fortunately for them, there are always new suckers to edit it furiously like we used to, in the olden days.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire