Is the problem Wikipedia, or David Megginson?

The Wikipedia article about me was vandalized yesterday (vandalized version) by someone from the IP address 24.225.66.95, which seems to be in or near Raleigh, North Carolina.

What should I do?

  1. Edit the article myself to remove the vandalism? — OK, that’s a really bad idea
  2. Go in anonymously and edit the article? — also a bad idea
  3. Rejoice in the fact that my article is important enough to be vandalized?
  4. Despair in the fact that my article is not important enough for anyone else to have noticed and fixed it?
  5. Reconcile myself to the idea that the edits are not vandalism at all, and I am, in truth, “a freaking looser who knows nothing” and “a noob”

I’m leaning towards #5, though I’m disappointed that kids these days seem to have forgotten how to swear properly: “a freaking loser”???

About David Megginson

Scholar, tech guy, Canuck, open-source/data/information zealot, urban pedestrian, language geek, tea drinker, pater familias, red tory, amateur musician, private pilot.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Is the problem Wikipedia, or David Megginson?

  1. I was going to fix it, but it looks as though someone beat me to it.

    And, just for the record, although I’m “in or near Raleigh, North Carolina,” it wasn’t me that vandalized!!

  2. david says:

    Thanks, Sarah (and thanks to the anonymous person who fixed the article).

  3. John Cowan says:

    The right thing to do about a page describing yourself is almost always nothing. There are plenty of Wikipedians, human and mechanical, who look for such things and fix them. If things have gone on too long unfixed, add a note to the talk page.

    That said, I am the author of the John Cowan article, though the John Cowan described there is not me, and I know little about him. At the same time I removed links to John Cowan in contexts that meant me, as I don’t consider myself notable enough.

  4. bryan says:

    I think the problem is you should try freaking in a tighter manner than you currently freak. I’m not criticizing you, I certainly understand the attraction, I used to freak extremely loosely, ex-treme-ly! But I found that my freakishly long legs were overturning much of my furniture when I did so, and as a consequence I was forced to redevelop my personal freaking style. Now I freak much better than ever.

  5. stand says:

    Option 6. Give some not insignificant amount of money to some intrepid individual (say, me) to go in anonymously and give you the vanity page that you so richly deserve.

    D’oh! I’m too late. Keep me in mind for next time 😉

  6. I have not read with full details the policies about edition of pages with interests, but I guess that reverting the version to the unvandalized one (I didn’t say “editing”) and posting full disclosure in the revert message would not be against the policies. At least when the vandalism is spam or obvious namecalling.

    The original contents remains as old versions, where they can be restated, and if the commit message is clear and transparent I see no harm. There is a gray area in there, but I think removing a couple of teenager-style insults from a page is clearly in the white side of any policy discussion.

  7. David Moles says:

    I think a simple revert of something like this would be allowable under the Vandalism policy, even if it’s to your own article. It’s a pretty clear example of what the policy calls “silly vandalism.”

  8. I blame Wikipedia!

  9. Hi, is there any option to find guy with given IP address? If you can’t do anything that sucks! I see that your entry looks little bit bad am affraid… 😦

Comments are closed.