Wikipedia Reconsiders Editing Process

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 All other edits would be sent to a queue and would not be published until they get approved by one of Wikipedia's trusted team of editors.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

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.

[viscor]

Is network news %u201Creliable%u201D? I doubt any Democrats out there would consider turning to Fox for unbiased news yet Republicans might argue that Fox is the only %u201Creliable%u201D source for unbiased news.

The Scientific Journal Nature is considered by most people to be very reliable yet there have been a few notorious cases where Nature has published studies that were later proven to be highly flawed.

Is the Bible %u201Creliable%u201D? The Bible is filled with unsubstantiated claims/stories without a shred of proof to back up claims/stories yet a very large percentage of people living %u201CWestern%u201D countries would claim that it is filled with nothing but fact.

The trick is that when seeking information:

1. Yes, we must consider the source while not summarily dismissing a source because of a few perceived inaccuracies.
2. Perhaps most importantly we must put on our critical thinking hats (too few people have that skill sadly).
3. We must consult multiple sources.

Consider the %u201Cfact%u201D the Edison invented the light bulb. 99% of people would agree that this is a fact. It is not. Edison simple improved on the design. Well %u2026.. that%u2019s not entirely true either. Edison and the people working at his lab improved on the design. Crediting Edison and ONLY Edison is factually incorrect yet it is an accepted %u201Cfact%u201D.

%u201CHistory is written by the winners.%u201D - Winston Churchill (or did he really say that? :-) )

[lonewackodot]

The problem is what WP considers a "trusted" user. I recently tried to put a negative fact about FactCheck on the BHO talk page. It was immediately deleted and my account was banned due to having a domain name in my username. I''d been using it since 2005 without an issue until then.

I then ran into a blizzard of rules - and no cooperation - when I tried to get my comment into a form that WP would accept. No one was willing to help, despite none of them being able to refute my comment:

peekurl.com/zq9gv93

I have some other examples of how you can''t trust WP here:

wikipediabias.com

[jsutaguy]

Wikipedia is fast on its way to the dust bin of the Internet due to the highly biased and personalized entries which are *already* created by its dubious "editors".
Take a look at the entry for Channon Christian, for example. The "editors" have repeatedly deleted verified facts about the abduction, torture and rape of Channon and her boyfriend, and the same "editors" have repeatedly deleted open-source photos of Channon, her boyfriend, and the thugs that are charged (some already convicted) in the crime.

Why? Because the "editors" have a personal point of view that they wish to present in the entries.


Wikipedia is already a joke.

[erasmus606]

If you want actual TRUE facts, you don''t get them from wikipedia.

Now guess who gets all their so called facts from Wikipedia? You all know who I''m talking about. The name starts with an "R" and ends in a "Y".:)
Mind you her name has changed a zillion times.

That explains why everything she says is wrong.

[tmittelstaed]

Wikipedia is on the whole mostly good. It gets defaced from time to time of course - almost always on the highly controversial subjects. If Wiki has a fault, it is that the editors can get highly anal-retentive about common knowledge. If you were to post the sentence "the sky is blue" in an entry, there would be a wiki editor right there demanding that you cite some scientific journal with an article saying the sky is blue. (of course, if you live in Los Angeles you might actually have never seen anything other than an orange sky in your life, ha ha)

[McHineguy]

Now that Larry Silverstein has admitted and confirmed in his PBS interview that bldg #7 at the world trade center was indeed demolished on 911 using explosives which would''''ve taken weeks to plant .... (see u-tube video)

and Barbara Bush admitted in her memoirs that George Bush''''s little brother was in charge of security for the world trade center .... (see barbara bush memoirs)

its time we had a real investigation of 911 and brought the real criminals, Larry Silverstien and the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate, to justice.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by notfooled at 03:34 PM : Jan 26, 2009

they had to blow up the WTC and the people in it because they had found out the real truth about those UFO''s we all see. The aliens said if we didnt blow up the WTC and the pentagon they would destroy the earth because we had learned too much about them. that plane in Pennsylvania didnt crash, it was destroyed by the aliens because it had key people on board who knew what was really going on.

Now, if I can just figure out a good ending for this fiction.

[usclimey]

If Wiki is so bad - how come it''s only right wing-nuts and conspiracy theorists who complain about it. I wouldn''t use it as a source for political comment - it''s not designed to be that - for pretty much everything else it seems fairly good to me.

[usclimey]

Wiki is junk. Don''''t trust anyone who allows hearsay and unsubstantiated articles to be passed along as truth.

Should be banned as propaganda.

Now that Larry Silverstein has admitted and confirmed in his PBS interview that bldg #7 at the world trade center was indeed demolished on 911 using explosives which would''''ve taken weeks to plant .... (see u-tube video)

Posted by notfooled

I love the fact you made these two posts back to back. Wiki might as well be Brittanica compared to your lunatic conspiracy ravings. Your nom-de-plume should be fooledagain rather than notfooled.

[notfooled]

Wiki is junk. Don''t trust anyone who allows hearsay and unsubstantiated articles to be passed along as truth.

Should be banned as propaganda.

[bobnjersey]

[There''''s another site like it for domain names, when someone searches that site for info about a domain name it automatically creates a new Wiki style free-for-all-libel-as-you-please page for that name, your only recourse is registering yourself and editing it (and constantly monitoring it forever)]
[Posted by newster1 at 01:54 PM : Jan 26, 2009]

what''s the domain name for this site? i have some domains to check

[nothappyatall]

Wikipedia sucks, it allows anonymous users using a proxy to hide their real ip address, to post any kind of libel and distortion they feel like against any individual or business.
There''s another site like it for domain names, when someone searches that site for info about a domain name it automatically creates a new Wiki style free-for-all-libel-as-you-please page for that name, your only recourse is registering yourself and editing it (and constantly monitoring it forever)

I''m waiting for the first lawsuits on that one to hit the media!

[spiritwalk]

Wiki never allows the harsh facts. Wiki is just as powerful/dangerous as a President with a pen.
Posted by Beach671

--------------------------------

It is not about white washing facts, there are outright lies on the site.

Every scientist that has written or spoken against the theory of global warming has had false entries added to their wiki bios claiming that they support everything from eugenics to alien conspiracies and when they have tried to have the blatantly false information removed wiki has refused.
As louiville2 said, it is a propaganda machine.

[louiville2]

Then there is this fact about the wiki propaganda machine.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

[beach671]

They wish to control facts and edit history.

For example the island of Guam is still listed as a United Nations Island to be De-colonized post WW-II and is a U.S. UNINCORPORATED Territory of the U.S.. The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands broke loose from the U.S. and is only in Political Union with the U.S.. President Bush then INCORPORATED these areas into the United States with a stroke of a pen, well that power is reserved for Congress only to Incorporate Property into the United States. Not a President.

Wiki never allows the harsh facts. Wiki is just as powerful/dangerous as a President with a pen.