Anonymous source is not the same as open source

Wikipedia is learning that a list of numbers is not as authoritative as a Nobel laureate.
The New York Times

The story "Anonymous source is not the same as open source" published March 11, 2006 at 3:36 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[Mendz]

Authority and Credibility

Indeed, there should be authorities reviewing and approving articles in Wikipedia from draft to final status. That should add credibility to Wikipedia's content once and for all.

It should be included in the process that a group of (recognized) experts review and approve articles to be marked as final. Final status articles are locked from editing until they are challenged and approved by (recognized) experts to be re-opened.

I guess an icon near the top of the article indicating its draft or final status is helpful enough. The main purpose of the status icon is to let readers/researchers know when the article can be considered as a credible source; or when it may require the reader/researcher to confirm from other sources.

In an information driven world, a little admitting is better than misleading.

[Mendz]

Authority and Credibility

Indeed, there should be authorities reviewing and approving articles in Wikipedia from draft to final status. That should add credibility to Wikipedia's content once and for all.

It should be included in the process that a group of (recognized) experts review and approve articles to be marked as final. Final status articles are locked from editing until they are challenged and approved by (recognized) experts to be re-opened.

I guess an icon near the top of the article indicating its draft or final status is helpful enough. The main purpose of the status icon is to let readers/researchers know when the article can be considered as a credible source; or when it may require the reader/researcher to confirm from other sources.

In an information driven world, a little admitting is better than misleading.

[Yet Another Mark Johnson]

Traditional media doesn't grasp the strategy

I've been amazed at the volume of "you can't trust Wikipedia" articles in recent months. The power of Wikipedia is that it has FIRST gained a huge community of interested contributors and the leadership can LATER impose "quality restrictions" as needed.

It makes perfect sense to allow it to continue to grow into the "overwhelming first-reference phenomenon" it is rapidly becoming and only then place "expert review" controls in place.

It is an infant, and the fact that a "four-year-old" is even being discussed in the same breath as the "grown-up" Encyclopedia Britannica simply proves Wikipedia is succeeding beyond anyone's wildest hopes.

As if what it is today even begins to define the limits of what it will be tomorrow. Many reporters can ONLY envision that Wikipedia will get "larger" (more of the same) but lack the insight to recognize it WILL get BETTER (become more mature in it's editing methodology.)

[J.G.]

Propaganda and lies

Success at spreading misinformation and disinformation is not
something to be applauded in my opinion. What will you be
approving next -- Holocaust revisionism? Would fit for someone
who supports the kind of crap that passes for information on
Wikipedia.

The day Wikipedia disappears from the Web will be a good one.
Better no information (for people who don't know of real reference
sources) than misinformation.

[Yet Another Mark Johnson]

Traditional media doesn't grasp the strategy

I've been amazed at the volume of "you can't trust Wikipedia" articles in recent months. The power of Wikipedia is that it has FIRST gained a huge community of interested contributors and the leadership can LATER impose "quality restrictions" as needed.

It makes perfect sense to allow it to continue to grow into the "overwhelming first-reference phenomenon" it is rapidly becoming and only then place "expert review" controls in place.

It is an infant, and the fact that a "four-year-old" is even being discussed in the same breath as the "grown-up" Encyclopedia Britannica simply proves Wikipedia is succeeding beyond anyone's wildest hopes.

As if what it is today even begins to define the limits of what it will be tomorrow. Many reporters can ONLY envision that Wikipedia will get "larger" (more of the same) but lack the vision to recognize it WILL get BETTER (become more mature in its editing methodology.)

[markdoiron]

What Author Failed to Say

Not once did the author care to mention the "Nature" survey that found that Wikipedia science articles are almost as accurate as peer-reviewed Britannica's, or that Wikipedia has the huge advantage or quick update following changes in our scientific understanding (not that THAT ever happens in science!).

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html</a>

Further, Wikipedia doesn't eschew popular topics in favor of the more academic. Where, for example, do you turn to learn the production and broadcast history of SG1? The articles on Wikipedia are limited only by the imagination and willingness of the contributors; those on Britannica by the practicality of paying someone for their work.

mark d.

[J.G.]

Wikipedia is worst of ideas

The claim Wikipedia is a good source of information is one of
the worse Internet frauds around. Truth of the matter is that
ignorance and bias mar just about any entry that leaves room for
opinion on it. I have read enough of a cross section over the
years to know better than to trust it with information that is not
so common or factual that it is foolproof. Yes, a Wikipedia
entry will say that there are 12 inches in a foot. But, look up
something as simple as the cause of the Civil War and you will
get misinformation placed there by people with an axe to grind.
"Nature" tarnished its own reputation by associating itself with
Wikipedia.

revolution!

Your opinion is accurate when you look at it "cold". Wikipedia is not just a encyclopedia, it is a path to the new way of thinking. I am seeing it as a proof that human consciousness is evolving, and wikipedia is the perfect example of that. The revolution is imminent. Maybe not all information is accurate or credible, but there always is a way to check some information, but in this world, you can't really say that anything written anywhere is true. Maybe you (e.g.) wrote the article just to discredit wikipedia, or not, thing is i would never know. The reader always has a final judgement. Wikipedia is mindblowing think, and if you would ask me 10 years ago that something like this could ever exist, i would call you a liar. The essence of wikipedia is that it is not controlled by anyone, that is why i think that serious editing would spoil its essence. I am optimist and think that wikipedia will survive this starting problems and be the path to higher level of human consciousness.

[_pdi]

A reminder

"The Economist" publishes anonymous articles for a very long time. This anonymity does not seem to influence the accuracy or authority of the newspaper's work, for there is an editorial process in place. Acknowledging all possible differences with Wikipedia, there's bound to be a similarity too.