Wikipedia May Restrict Public’s Ability to Change Entries

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Principessa, Jan 25, 2009.

  1. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Wikipedia May Restrict Public’s Ability to Change Entries

    Stung by criticism after vandals changed Wikipedia entries to erroneously report that Senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd had died, Wikipedia appears ready to introduce a system that prevents new and anonymous users from instantly publishing changes to the online encyclopedia.

    The new system, called Flagged Revisions, would mark a significant change in the anything-goes, anyone-can-edit-at-any-time ethos of Wikipedia, which in eight years of existence has become one of the top 10 sites on the Web and the de facto information source for the Internet-using public.

    The idea in a nutshell is that only registered, reliable users would have the right to have their material immediately appear to the general public visiting Wikipedia. Other contributors would be able to edit articles, but their changes will be held back until one of these reliable users has signed off, or “flagged” the revisions. (Registered, reliable users would see the latest edit to an article, whether flagged or not.)

    The system has been used by German Wikipedia since May as a test case. Introduced slowly, since all that flagging is quite labor-intensive, German Wikipedians report that more than 95 percent of articles have been flagged, though there are delays as long as three weeks before an article’s revision appears on the site to all visitors.

    While long discussed as something to be used by the much-larger English Wikipedia, Flagged Revisions was given new life as a proposal after Wikipedia’s mastermind — Jimmy Wales — all but ordered it be adopted after the Kennedy and Byrd false-death reports, which remained on the site for about five minutes.

    On his user page, under the header “Why I Am Asking Flagged Revisions Be Turned On Now,” Mr. Wales observed: “This nonsense would have been 100% prevented by Flagged Revisions.”

    Wikipedia can already put an article on lockdown, preventing changes. On Thursday night, for example, the article about Janis Joplin was protected after the NBC show “30 Rock” used malicious editing of Ms. Joplin’s Wikipedia article in the plot. People immediately began imitating that suggestion until the page was made closed to editing. It was still locked down Friday afternoon.

    But Mr. Wales argued that this kind of lockdown would have been a mistake in the case of the two senators, because “this was a breaking news story and we want people to be able to participate.”

    Mr. Wales noted that a community poll showed that 60 percent of Wikipedians were in favor of the proposal and that it would be a “time limited test.” He said that the delay should be less than the German Wikipedia allowed: “less than 1 week, hopefully a lot less, 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.”

    He concluded his post with the succinct order: “To the Wikimedia Foundation: per the poll of the English Wikipedia community and upon my personal recommendation, please turn on the flagged revisions feature as approved in the poll.”

    The response was immediate and deafening, with headlines like: “Jimbo Wales, stop acting dictator.”

    In reaction, Mr. Wales offered a compromise:
    Those who are in the minority who are opposed to this are invited to make an alternative proposal within the next 7 days, to be voted upon for the next 14 days after that…I ask you to seek some detailed policy around the use of the feature that you think both you and the supporters can agree upon. Simply engaging in FUD and screaming is not going to be helpful, but I trust that outside of a few, most of the people opposed can actually work cogently with others to find a reasonable and responsible compromise position.

    Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, said the organization did not yet have a fixed timeline on when the new approval system would be adopted.

    “Implementing this functionality is really a volunteer community decision,” he wrote in an e-mail message. “We know the discussion about flagged revs is still taking place on English Wikipedia, but at this stage, it appears the majority of the community are behind this decision. As that discussion unfolds, we’ll have a better sense of the timing.”


    I can see where this would be labor intensive for wikipedia staff but I think it's a good idea.

    I know some on this site tend not to trust any info from Wikipedia because the public can basically post anything. I think that adding flags would lend credibility to Wikipedia as a source of information. :cool:
     
  2. nudeyorker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42,918
    Likes Received:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC/Honolulu
    OH darn I can't go in and change mine to the most handsome living legend in all of the universe, guess I'll just have to learn to live with the truth!
     
  3. splitface

    splitface New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    lol... This will actually be a good thing, it will prevent people form writing
    "I FUCKING LOVE PENIS!!!!!!!!!" Across multiple pages, which I HAVE seen
     
  4. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Flagged revisions sound like a good idea to me.
    Three years ago, Nature magazine had experts compare articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica and in Wikipedia, giving them articles to assess without specifying the source.
    Wikipedia did surprisingly well.
    The 42 expert reviews found four major errors from each source.
    I think hardly anybody would have expected Wikipedia to do that well.
    To be sure, the experts did find more errors of a trivial kind in Wikipedia ... 162 compared to the 132 found in the Britannica.
    To someone who used Wikipedia as much as I do, that was gratifying.
    But the fact is that Wikipedia, simply in terms of reputation, isn't a source that one wants to use in journalism or serious blogging or any writing where readers expect rigor.
    And much of the reason for that is just the fact that anyone can change the content of an article.
    This new policy should, over time, give Wikipedia significantly more stature.
     
  5. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    To be honest, the Wikipedia project is quite impressive to me.

    The fact is that it's basically proven that, given the opportunity, those who care more about seeing something reported accurately and informatively outnumber and outlast those who want to see something reported inaccurately and uninformatively.

    So while I agree that it's not a valid source to reference in an argument, it usually provides sources in its text that are valid (and if it doesn't, it usually tags something as such).

    Other public Wikis that I've visited often have these contribution monitors for new editors that generally seem to work. Like you said, the major problem is that it requires more of the staff behind the scenes. And with a project the size of Wikipedia, that's daunting.

    Regardless, I love Wikipedia, I love editing it, and I think it's a great resource for the world, and if this proves to improve it, I'm all for it.
     
  6. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    The bibliographies and the reference lists are often really helpful.
    (I didn't know that you edited Wikipedia, Guy-jin. How much time do you spend doing that?)
     
  7. invisibleman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina

    I can't change the entry in your Wikipedia entry where you were in a lot of earlier Coke commercials. :eek:
     
  8. nudeyorker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42,918
    Likes Received:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC/Honolulu
    Yeah...sad but true and I think Chris Atkins IMBD gets more hits than mine too!
     
  9. invisibleman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina
    :wink:Well, I would wonder whether Andrew Stevens gets more hits...you look more like him just with blond hair. And he is supposed to be hung...so you could be twin bros.
     
  10. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Oh just an hour or two a week. It depends on if I happen upon anything in my areas of expertise that need editing! It's fun! :smile:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted