It doesn't have to be someone's property. It can be common property, shared property, or - in some loony cases - even your own.
It can be total destruction, or just minor damage.--Richardb 00:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process..
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Are we now going to have to define every wiki-specific sense? I thought we'd decided not to include such usages. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that debate (IIRC) was right as WT:VOTE was starting, and wasn't particularly well defined. I have thought we should have these (appropriately tagged, of course) for a long time. But for the specific entry vandalism, I don't see it as wiki-specific - it is simply kids with cans of spray paint, in the most generic sense imaginable. --Connel MacKenzie 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, the current definition is Wikipedia-specific, as if we don't get vandalism round here (yeah, right). — Paul G 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are there any implications for Wikipedia in defining this here? I doubt it's Wiktionary's charge to define these terms. Are there any legal ramifications? e.g. "Judge, this wasn't vandalism even according to their own definition." DAVilla 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Er, I doubt it. Most Wikipedians would be more comfortable at dictionary.com than here. Our only charge is to uphold CFI. In general, making exceptions for self-references is a bad idea that tends to make us look less professional and serious. We should err on the side of deletion, not inclusion, with these sorts of terms, especially ones like this that don't pass the independence clause of CFI. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it listed as jargon at all? Surely sense 1 is adequate to describe vandalism of a wiki. RobbieG 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like it. I'm getting rid of it. It doesn't seem anyone is arguing strongly for it anyway. DAVilla 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- sense previously removed, struck Cynewulf 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply using one form of logic then, by this definition, if some hits my car with theirs, and then my car slams into someone's mail box, destroying it, then it was vandalism. I did not need to damage that mail box. However, in order to not violate the laws of physics, I might have needed to.
This definition does however seem to fit what some Wikimedians/Wikipedians would like vandalism to mean. Emesee 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've replaced "Needless" with "Willful", which I think sums it up better - feel free to improve further. Conrad.Irwin 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The definition implies that destruction of other people's property with a purpose is not to be considered vandalism, which I don't think is correct. For the examples given in the quote--windows are often smashed by socialists not because they like destruction, but because it cuts into the profits of corporations they see as immoral. Even tagging (graffiti) could be seen as an activity engaged in to heighten one's social status in certain circles. I thought that what makes something vandalism is just that you're destroying the property of SOMEONE ELSE WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, not what your motives are. 184.108.40.206 20:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)