Growing Wikipedia revises its 'anyone can edit' policy

In response to well-publicized problems with some entries, the online encyclopedia is exercising more editorial control.
The New York Times

The story "Growing Wikipedia revises its 'anyone can edit' policy" published June 17, 2006 at 5:53 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[thenet411]

Wikipedia has become a Nazi culture

The amount of unemployed losers editing the Wikipedia has grown substantially in the last year. Unfortunately, this gives "experienced editors" an inflated sense of self-worth and Wikipedia suffers as a result because Wikipedia seems to value the opinions of these "experienced editors" over those that have followed Wikipedia but haven't contributed much even if the "experienced editors" know next to nothing about a given subject.

Even the creator of Wikipedia knows that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. It will never be able to be trusted because of its open nature. In 10, 20, even 50 years, it will be neat to go back and see how far off the Wikipedia is, but it should never be looked at as anything more than a social experiment gone awry.

[katamari]

Completely in agreement.

Well said.

[Vurk]

Not quite

Yes, some of the "editors" at Wikipedia have let power go to their heads and have started defining what "neutral, accurate and relevant" mean, but in general, Wikipedia still succeeds in its mission.
In its pages, a person can find information on diverse and esoteric subjects which have never before been easy to find. Subjects ranging from the mundane, like dogwood trees, to the wildly esoteric, like OS-tans.
I agree that the volunteer editors, especially those in charge of the "Articles for deletion" selection have turned into Nazi-like megalomaniacs, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. (not familiar with the expression? Look it up, its probably in Wikipedia!)

As far as trust goes, how can you trust anything in print? Even the editors at the Encyclopedia Brittanica has biases yet they are trusted implicitly(at least by the 5 people who still use them). You trust things people say every day. At least with Wikipedia, if you know that an entry is blatantly wrong or wildly defamatory, *you*, the net411, can do something about it.
Lets see you try that with the Encyclopedia Brittanica!
(Unless you are a Republican, in which case you always believe anything an R politician or Fox News says, and always disbelieve anything not coming from one of those two sources; because those sources say they are to be trusted implicitly since they are incapable of being wrong)

[Mendz]

This is good news!!!

Wikipedia is maturing towards managing its credibility as a reliable source of information. Levels of content protection in the system is much needed now that there are people expecting more confidence with the web site's content. Google: search. Wikipedia: research...

[Earl Benser]

Wikipedia remains a fiaso.....

.... no real control, no consistency, no corroboration. At best, just
someone's current opinion, whether or not any intelligence is
involved. Basically a nice idea until the idiots show up - and they
show up in spades. Yes you have to verify all reference material.
but Wikipedia is little more than soft intellectual jello - you never
can be sure what it says this time.

[TV James]

I dunno...

I find it incredibly useful. I've corrected a few things. If this were wikified, I'd correct the spelling error in your subject.

I think they'll continue to explore different ways to foil the doofi out there. I mean, honestly, how many of us really need immediate access to make changes on an article about Christina or President Bush?

There will always be give and take, but I for one am really appreciative of the site, it's pretty much one of the first places I turn after Google to find the answer to something.