Wikipedia Reconsiders Editing Process

[sabra]

Source: CBS News/CNET

The User-Generated Resource Looks At Allowing Only Trusted Users To Immediately Publish Content Changes

(CNET) 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 All other edits would be sent to a queue and would not be published until they get approved by one of Wikipedia's trusted team of editors.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.

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.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/26/tech/cnettechnews/main4753223.shtml?tag=main_home_storiesBySection

[global1]

1. I'm Sure Last Weeks 30 Rock Episode Didn't Help Either.......nt

[Piewhacket]

2. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.. lipstick, pig... hey.

I'm not saying it isn't useful, worthwhile, even great.
I use wikipedia constantly.

But its wayyyyy too late to try to make it into an
"authoritative source" beauty contestant.

Here they are just looking to put some lipstick on the pig,
but the proposal still amounts to a elite cadre deciding what goes into
the pedia, which is what Britannica does and what WIKIPEDIA
was all about undoing.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Ye Gads! Could it be that an "elite cadre"...

is really the best way to become a credible source?

(You know-- having people who actually know what they're talking about and can be trusted to not play games)

[Piewhacket]

12. Sure, and that's why we USE Wikipedia and VERIFY with Britannica.

i am a substantial academic, but not a snob.
i've contributed to the wiki, proudly. and corrected it too.
i use it. i contribute. some of the stuff is REALLY good!
written by real experts and pros. i can tell.
but not everyone can, and its not always so.

and Wiki will never "become" an authoritative source.
its too late for that, that's not what wiki is, or meant to be.
besides, frankly, some of the editors are just not up to spec.
No, I mean "really not".

yet as long as people understand the limitations of the
tools they are using, there is no call to denounce using
the tools. the wiki is what it is. its cool.

yet what if it is sold to the unaware as something else?
indeed when crude tools are sold as surgical instruments,
one must pause to consider objecting. for those instrument
might be used on us during surgery by an idiot trained
using a non-authoritative source! so hey,

the wikipedia just needs to have their editors monitor edits, not
approve them, as they have already been doing, but don't
really have enough qualified editors, so incident like the
above cited will happen. that is life.

[NashVegas]

10. Wiki Can Never Be A Truly Authoritative Source

Because they refuse first-hand accounts and observation.

Still a good repository, though.

[Zhade]

14. Anecdotal evidence isn't good enough, sorry.

They're right not to include that stuff. It can't be corroborated.

If they allowed it, they'd be inundated with woowoo nonsense.

[NashVegas]

16. Anything That Has Witnesses and Documentation Can Be Verified

The only difference between (honest) first hand information and info from books, news articles, and magazines is that the author got paid for the latter. As the traditional publishing world continues to budget cut away fact checkers ...

Even without that, it's not difficult to skirt. All you've got to do is start your own blog, put your creds in your profile and voila! You're Wikiable.

[Zhade]

17. Yeah, but that's not solely anecdotal at that point. There's corroborating evidence.

I'm speaking more of the "I saw Jesus/unicorns/leprechauns/Bigfoot in the woods, honest!"-style "evidence".

[Book Lover]

4. Chortle. Chortle. Chortle.

Yeah, maybe the people who have been making reference books for the past few hundred years knew what the fuck they were doing, Jimmy. I'm not too proud to say nyah, nyah, nyah.

[Endangered Specie]

5. oooh "trusted" members... sounds like something outof animal farm

:P

[Posteritatis]

7. Or any area that recognizes the concept of "this guy knows more about this than that guy" (nt)

[Lionel Mandrake]

19. All editors are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[sundayatwork]

6. So how long...

So how long before we have to start paying for it? Or are there just going to be 'donation drives' that never end.

Web 1.0: They make the content, they make the money.
Web 2.0: You make the content, they make the money.
Web 3.0: They realize your content is not that good, return to making content/money.

[Xithras]

8. Interesting implications for new page creation...and a win for the deletionists.

So, If I throw a page up on Wiki for some local item that may be of interest to others, and five minutes after publishing it I discover that I forgot/mispelled/mis-cited something, I have to wait for someone else to review the change before the changes go live?

This could potentially be a win for deletionist administrators who don't want that sort of thing on Wiki in the first place.

[Hugin]

9. Well, I can kiss the Immanuel Velikovsky page good bye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

+5 brownie points for anyone who knows what I'm talking about without clicking on THIS link.

:eyes:

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Wikipedia is still ...

... the largest collection of "http://skepdic.com/">SkepDic" links on the Internet.

--p!
Every. Single. Damn. Page.

[Zhade]

15. Thank goodness for that. We've got enough unsubstantiated woowoo bullshit on the internet already.

NT!

[Posteritatis]

18. Why would tightening editorial standards result in articles going away? (nt)

[boppers]

20. How do I claim my points?

While I haven't checked into the article lately, the whole point is keeping scammers, frauds, con artists, griefers and trolls at bay (of which Velikovsky was quite the combination).

"Sokal/Social text" will still have an article, as will Velikovsky, along with those nutty french pseudo-mathematicians, and Gene Ray, they'll all just be articles that are vetted by people who are proven editors.

[Blue Dog Dominion]

22. What about poor Stephanie Adams?

Perhaps the most outrageous lawsuit ever, with funny results

http://adamsvpoling.wordpress.com/

[Zhade]

13. Oh, goody. Destroy the democracy of Wiki. Swell.

I sure am looking forward to all those biased entries on things like Israel, South American leaders and marijuana -- in which ignorance and propaganda will remain entrenched.

Awesome.

:eyes:

[boppers]

21. Oh, democracy will still be there.

Access to the ballots, however, won't be readily available to every known method of ballot stuffing a person can come up with, which is the current problem.

Check out AfD for some amusing examples of it in action.