Wikibooks talk:Dealing with vandalism

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

[edit] Spam/Vandalism

I cannot agree with "It is generally a good idea to let contributors to a book decide whether external links are inappropriate or not and to assume good faith." NO spammer is going to tell you that their links are spam and inappropriate. The Spam Project on Wp would frequent mention the fact that the stronger the objection to deletion the more likely it was to be spam. Some regime here will have to decide what is acceptable to Wikibooks or be overwhelmed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Equally the bit under "External links". Going to bed now - will return & probably be unpopular in the morning --Herby ^{talk thyme} 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording probably isn't the best. It relies on their being more then one contributor to overwhelm any attempt of a spammer to spam a book and claim its anything but what it is. Wikibooks isn't Wikipedia what works there won't necessarly work here. Wikipedia is like a single book in terms of how Wikibooks works. Someone who knows something about the book subject is more qualified to know what is and isn't spam then a user who knows nothing about the subject. I could probablly add something about checking the user's contributions to see if they have done the same to other books on a wide variety of subjects, which may give a clue as to whether its spam or not. I'm not trying to define spam here. --darklama 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone misses it Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Who_are_the_final_arbiters_of_Wikibooks_content. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)