Vandalism/abuse policy?
While perusing San Francisco this popped up:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-122.4 ... 80&env=usa
Two bogus segments, possibly from a plane (I couldn't find any more looking in either direction but I didn't look that carefully either).
Vandalism reports go to the RC I know, and notifications are in place, but I was curious how we deal with vandalism and abuse as a matter of policy.
It seems unlikely that an editor who starts out this way is going to blossom into a fine upstanding member of the editing community. I'd be glad to be proven wrong but that'd be my suspicion. This would argue for a low-tolerance (zero tolerance?) policy in the case of obvious abuse or vandalism.
I ask because there is the alternative path of a PM from a fellow editor saying "welcome to the editing community, and oh, it looks like you might not understand how the editor works, let's work together." That's of course the best path with unintentional screwups (of which we've all made our fair share). But stuff like this...?
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-122.4 ... 80&env=usa
Two bogus segments, possibly from a plane (I couldn't find any more looking in either direction but I didn't look that carefully either).
Vandalism reports go to the RC I know, and notifications are in place, but I was curious how we deal with vandalism and abuse as a matter of policy.
It seems unlikely that an editor who starts out this way is going to blossom into a fine upstanding member of the editing community. I'd be glad to be proven wrong but that'd be my suspicion. This would argue for a low-tolerance (zero tolerance?) policy in the case of obvious abuse or vandalism.
I ask because there is the alternative path of a PM from a fellow editor saying "welcome to the editing community, and oh, it looks like you might not understand how the editor works, let's work together." That's of course the best path with unintentional screwups (of which we've all made our fair share). But stuff like this...?
Re: Vandalism/abuse policy?