Not so needless to say, testing the rigor of Wikipedia by vandalizing a community resource isn’t the best approach — and thousands of Slashdotters could be put towards more productive use. But its great to have the issue raised to this level.
1. Tim Keller on September 6, 2004 10:59 PM writes...
The problem is a disparity between the expected threat model & the one really in use at Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community could configure themselves to be quite defensive & quickly reactive, assuming that malicious users seeking to subvert the database are a common event to be routinely protected against; but instead they assume a trust model that's more permissive towards the typical outsider.
Basically, if assholes are going to overrun the system, the system can handle it; it's just going to be more of a pain for the people who care about it. Which is the better path: to make Wikipedia's users paranoid or to try & teach other people how not to be assholes?
1. Tim Keller on September 6, 2004 10:59 PM writes...
The problem is a disparity between the expected threat model & the one really in use at Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community could configure themselves to be quite defensive & quickly reactive, assuming that malicious users seeking to subvert the database are a common event to be routinely protected against; but instead they assume a trust model that's more permissive towards the typical outsider.
Basically, if assholes are going to overrun the system, the system can handle it; it's just going to be more of a pain for the people who care about it. Which is the better path: to make Wikipedia's users paranoid or to try & teach other people how not to be assholes?
I know which I prefer.
Tim
Permalink to Comment