My unpleasant experience
If my unpleasant experience is typical of Wiktionary there may be any number of discontented Wiktionarians and Wiktionary risks losing many potential contributors.
I joined Wikionary in December 2006. I made many edits, which I feel were useful.
I made one edit of the entry on Viagra. I thought it had useful information on cultural context and how the word is used.
"Viagra are nice purple pillies, do wonders for those floppy willies."
Someone reverted the edit and blocked me for a month. I feel the block was an overreaction. I certainly didn’t intend to vandalize. I was told, “You may contact Williamsayers79 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.” Every time I tried to discuss the block I was blocked from doing so.
Let me say when I added the verse about Viagra I wasn’t entirely sure if the Wiktionary community would want to keep it.
- I fully expected that I might find it deleted or perhaps get a PM discussing why someone wanted to delete it.
- I fully expected that there might be discussion on the Talk:Viagra page about whether or not the verse should be included.
- I even expected I might get a strong warning, “Please don’t add that again.”
The block was an unpleasant surprise and, I feel undeserved.
Suggested modification of Wiktionary policy on vandalism
On Wikipedia users are rarely banned after a single act of vandalism. Typically after a single vandalism users are asked politely to stop. After about 3 vandalisms they get a strong warning. After about 5 vandalisms they get a short block, to show Wikipedia means it. If vandalism continues blocks become increasingly long. Wiktionary could consider a similar policy.
As the above shows in Wiktionary there can be real uncertainty what is an attempt to illustrate the use of an English word and what is deliberate vandalism. Waiting till there have been several vandalisms ensures that you are dealing with a deliberate vandal.