Wikipedia considers limiting user edits
Just as Encyclopedia Britannica is moving in the direction of user-based entries, Wikipedia might soon be clamping down on theirs.
Wikipedia is apparently considering instituting a new editorial process that would put better safeguards in place and require all updates to be approved by a "reliable" user. The so-called Flagged Revisions process would allow registered, trusted editors to publish changes to the site immediately. All other edits would be sent to a queue and would not be published until they get approved by one of Wikipedia's trusted team of editors.
The proposal comes in the aftermath of a false entry that was posted by a user, saying Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd had died after an inaugural luncheon last week.
News.com Poll
On his public discussion page, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said, "This nonsense would have been 100 percent prevented by Flagged Revisions," adding that the system gives the site the flexibility to cover breaking news stories quickly while avoiding some of the shenanigans it's seen in the past.
The German version of Wikipedia has been using the system for a while now (partially since May and fully since August, according to one Wikipedia user). But Wales himself points out one major problem with the German model, citing delays of up to three weeks before edits get approved and go live.
"Our version should show very minimal delays (less than 1 week, hopefully a lot less)," wrote Wales, "because we will only be using it on a subset of articles, the boundaries of which can be adjusted over time to manage the backlog."
Which subset of articles would be flagged and exactly how those boundaries would be set isn't clear from the discussion.
Wales writes in his comments that 60 percent of users who responded to a poll approved of the move. Think Wikipedia's plans are a bad idea? There's time to give your input. Wales has asked people opposed to the Flagged Revisions plan to propose other workable solutions to the problem of wiki malfeasance.
Jennifer Guevin is assistant managing editor of CNET News. She focuses on science and green tech. But she also makes the occasional contribution to CNET's kitchen gadgets blog or writes about the latest Web distraction. Once a week, she takes the mic as host of CNET's Daily News Podcast. E-mail Jennifer. 
It eases research, yet like any source of information is never absolutely right. Britannica has its share of errors and biases too.
In the area of computer science and mathematics, Wikipedia is a rock solid starting place.
I challenge you to find a better and more complete intro to referential transparency or evolutionary programming, for example, in any other encyclopedia.
An encyclopedia doesn't ever cover the details, it is an overview.
People think Wikipedia is mainly inaccurate simply because they disagree, not because it is wrong.
Bottom line, once you get past elementary school most teachers expect you to do research that is more serious than simply going to an encyclopedia. Even when I was in HS long before Wikipedia was even an idea in Jimmy Wales mind I don't remember any of my teachers considering encyclopedias more than a place to start your research. Most encyclopedias will list a short list of reference materials that they referenced for their article that one can go for further research, but only the laziest student would stop there.
Furthermore, I think that if you take a critical eye to more traditional sources you will find that there are a lot of books in libraries that are actually less accurate than Wikipedia. Only the neo-Luddites still cling to the notion that the printed word is automatically more trustworthy than the online one. Even a lot of people who were originally dismissive of online sources have come to acknowledge that the internet isn't all filled with lies. I had several professors that assigned readings for historical documents from various online sources.
I don't consider Wikipedia perfect by the wildest stretch of the imagination, but for non-political articles that have extensive links to outside sources I find that the articles are far more likely to be accurate than most other sources in both the print and online world.
Jimmy Wales has been advocating that the extension be enabled so that it can be tested before it goes into either more widespread or more permanent use. This is supported somewhat by a poll for a *trial* of the software, which came out with 60% overall support, which is low for Wikipedia, which usually tries for more along the lines of 75% or more support for big changes like this.
The extension can be configured in multiple ways which would end up placing different restrictions on which edits "go live", that is, are displayed by default for a given article. This has the potential to help prevent vandalism and other inappropriate edits.
Given the low level of consensus on the original poll, the focus is shifting to a more specific proposal for "Flagged protection", using a specific configuration where the approval process will be used only on certain articles, as an alternative to normal page protection or "locking". This new proposal looks like it will get more support, since it actually opens Wikipedia up more. Some articles which anonymous and new users currently cannot edit would be editable by them under this proposal?albeit that those edits would have to be approved, by anyone who would already be able to edit the page under the current system.
The details remain to be worked out, but it looks like this version is the version that has the most chance of being implemented.
60% of who??? Wikipedians (the adminsitrators wise people don't trust) or 60% of all the people who visited Wikipedia in a month?
Locking out the general public is just locking in more misinfromation and bias.
What software?
MediaWiki - Really annoying software to use BTW. Whoever designed it should be flogged.
Extensions for MediaWiki?
Hint: Use a search engine.
In the case I'm talking about I was working with people who a great deal of money stolen from them by an insider. The money was diverted to a third party who believed the money was from his failed business interests. History has now been rewritten on Wikipedia to where the money was stolen from him - a complete fabrication. We're now seeing the same thing with Ted Haggard, a conservative christian minister caught with his pants down with a male prostitute. He's now rewriting history to make himself the "victim".
As long as people can edit history to their advantage or to suit their beliefs they will.
So, while the "Flagged Revision" or "Flagged Protection" may help to combat spam, vandalism and contributors with other bad motives, it does nothing to solve the problem that the vast majority of content is contributed by a small minority of hard-core wikiparrots... while those with real insight quickly learn that it isn't worth the time or effort.
Wikipedia is far from perfect, but for every article in my area of expertise, I've found the information to be better and less biased than most other sources traditionally considered "reliable".
Wikipedia is mature enough and has enough content that it can switch to moderated mode. I don't know if flagged revisions is the best alternative (I tend to favor reputation based systems for this type of filtering) but even that should lead to acceptable results as for most topics there's already tons of contents available that's good enough.
Lets pick any subject a person my be a professional at and so he wants to to make a wiki page about it.
You edit it and you know it will take a few weeks to build it up to fit the proper format and such but then someone comes along and denies you access to a page that you yourself created and no matter how many edit you have tried to make on it some idiot reverts it to some blank page as if they had the right or authority to do so. EVen in the edits tab where you try to leave a commont on edits also is wiped out along with the main page then 3 day later I am locked out of my own creation attempts. Nobody should have this right to block out someoen who had the from the get go and had no other help as they (I ) was the sole source originator of that information and or data.
So yes I am glad that they will limit who edits what and new pages created should be the sole responsibility of the first creator I'd say for the first 30 to 60 days. But durring this phase anyone should be able to comment on the edit tab for updates that SHOULD take place.
Right now as it is Wikipedia is run in a Mafia type fashion where what I make/create is instantly taken away permanently for no good reason whatsoever. I'd like to see Steve Jobs try and edit his own Wiki pedia page about himself.... I am sure he would get locked out of the edit process by what ever Mafia rule they use at Wikipedia.
The title was that of a company, and in your "article", you specifically requested that if there was a man of a specific description, which you detailed, still working there, you wanted someone to let him know to give you back your money. And you specifically stated that you hoped to keep the page up until someone from the company contacted you, hopefully him. And you ended the article with "I am willing to settle for 200 gold (world of warcraft)" How possibly could that ever be considered encyclopedic?
What article are you talking about. I've created tons of Articles on there and never had the problem you say. The only time you'll have someone block you is if you add nonsense (e.g. swearing and other stuff.) or if you break the 3 revert rule. If you disagree with another users edits after you both revert back and forth 3 times you're supposed to take it to the talk page and talk out your differences. If that still can't be settled take it to others on Wikipedia to add their $0.02.
Most of the time if you type "WP:" in the search box plus what you are looking for you can reach the non article parts of Wikipedia e.g. "WP:Help" etc.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking
ABSOLUTELY.
IS 3 WEEKS, OR SO, A REASONABLE TIME TO HAVE SOME EDITING BEING DISPLAYED ?
NO WAY.
IS THERE A COMPROMISE POSSIBLE ?
YES.
1) UNREGISTERED USERS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO EDIT.
2) IF SOME USER HAS HAD A PRIOR SLAP ON THE WRIST, EVERY PIECE OF EDITING THAT "S(HE)" PRODUCES, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO APPROVAL BEFORE BEING DISPLAYED - JUSTIFIED BIG BROTHER MOVE.
3) EVERY SINGLE EDIT IN EVERY ARTICLE OR COMMENT HAS A HISTORY WITH DATE, TIME AND USER THAT HAS EDITED IT.
SO, IF SOME ARTICLE WAS REVIEWD UNTIL "EDITION X", IT IS SIMPLE TO WARN READERS, IN THE TOP OF THE PAGE, STATING "LAST EDITING REVIEWD" AND A LINK TO THAT "EDITION X".
IF SOME READER IS JUST BROWSING, "S(HE)" CAN VIEW THE ENTIRE PAGE.
IF A RESEARCHER WANTS ONLY SOME CREDITED INFORMATION, "S(HE)" WILL JUMP TO THE SAID "EDITION X" LINK.
It's a cesspool of bias and misinformation now, and will only get worse with a cadre of "Wikipedians" in complete control.
The Wikipedians need to be watched an controlled by other means if the general public is no longer allowed to do it. The Wikipedians are not our friends, they are a threat.
It is funny how critics never back up their claims, unlike material on Wikipedia.
1. That Wales tries to sell the idea of "Neutral Viewpoint" when there is so little of it at Wikipedia. A small number of gatekeepers called "Wikipedians" ultimately control what shows up on a given page. There is no evidence these people are objective in any way and are not to be trusted, especially after Wales locks out regular users.
2. This brings up the second Wales Utopian ideal, and that is that "Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an on-line community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
His Utopian ideal of an on-line community has failed since he finds the need to block regular users and leave changes to the Wikipedians, who become the elite arbitrators of all things. I say Wales has shifted from a very democratic view of information to a very totalitarian view.
By and large, the Wikipedia experiment has failed. This new move toward cencorship proves that.
It is a great starting place, but that doesn't mean you have to reference it. Look at the bottom of a page, see all those references? What you just read is a summary of that. Go to those references, and then use references listed there, and so on.
It is a great tool.
If you use the citations at the bottom of the page though Wikipedia can be a good starting point for researching a topic.
Just remember, the discover channel is an entertainment channel. It is not factual all the time, many shows bend the truth in favor of drama.
- by i8246i January 27, 2009 5:51 AM PST
- Its obvious that a lot of people have never done serious searching on Wikipedia. You'll see plenty of grammatical mistakes, sourcing errors, dead links.....
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by WeCanNotJudge10 January 27, 2009 10:10 AM PST
- "Imagine if those dollars went towards something worthwhile, such as research on cancer, AIDS, organ transplants/tissue cloning, or even curing the common flippin' cold! Imagine if this money was put towards the collection of information that doesn't need to be sourced, because it is the ORIGINAL source of a piece of information? What about using this money to help create a database of free textbooks, lecture material, and related documents to help teach people around the world?"
- Like this
-
(35 Comments)And then there's the yearly drive for millions of dollars for the "wikipedia foundation" or something like that. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent on someone's half-witted idea...
Imagine if those dollars went towards something worthwhile, such as research on cancer, AIDS, organ transplants/tissue cloning, or even curing the common flippin' cold! Imagine if this money was put towards the collection of information that doesn't need to be sourced, because it is the ORIGINAL source of a piece of information? What about using this money to help create a database of free textbooks, lecture material, and related documents to help teach people around the world?
Nope, wasted on wikipedia, where anyone can make a page about anything, and their only sources are questionable blog pages, other wikipedia articles, and one real book or article that you have to pay a subscription to view.
I don't "hate" Wikipedia...I just dislike how its grown from a decent idea to a giant, money-hungry cesspool of questionable adminstration and pseudo-anonymous editing.
Wikipedia needs a reboot: start all over, and stop allowing ANY form of anonymous entries/edits. EVERY PAGE must be created by people worth their salt, and editors can only be people who pass lengthy tests of knowledge, social graces, and proper grammar. Articles must INFORM, not advertise or provide a "book report" type of review. Articles must reference REAL books and REAL articles, written by REAL people who write about FACTS, not opinions.
...But, that takes too much effort for the "hard working administrators" of Wikipedia
Kudos to any and all educational facilities who ban Wikipedia.
Those dollars are spent on something worthwhile. I go on Wikipedia all the time to get a general idea about anything and everything. And i find your comment about using the money on something else invalid. I think MILLIONS of more dollars are spent on finding cures for cancer than used to run Wikipedia. If you believe that Wikipedia money should be used for other things then you should believe that money from the lottery, money used for commercials, or money from game shows, should be used towards something else too. Because at least the money collected by Wikipedia goes towards SOMETHING, even if it's not always correct. I find Wikipedia to be a great starting place for information and if the article doesn't have a lot of sources, then I don't trust it as much.
All in all, I'm for what they are suggesting, but keep it limited.