• Wikipedia to require approval of edits for some articles
    28 replies, posted
[quote=BBC News][b]The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia is on the cusp of launching a major revamp to how people contribute to some pages.[/b] The site will require that revisions to pages about living people and some organisations be approved by an editor. This would be a radical shift for the site, which ostensibly allows anyone to make changes to almost any entry. The two-month trial, which has proved controversial with some contributors, will start in the next "couple of weeks", according to a spokesperson. "I'm sure it will spark some controversy," Mike Peel of Wikimedia UK, a chapter of the organisation that operates Wikipedia, told BBC News. However, he said, the trial had been approved in an an online poll, with 80% of 259 users in favour of the trial. "The decision to run this trial was made by the users of the English Wikipedia, rather than being imposed." The proposal was first outlined by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in January this year. It was met by a storm of protests from Wikipedia users who claimed the system had been poorly thought out or would create extra work. [b]'Lock down'[/b] The two-month trial will test a system of "flagged revisions" on the English-language Wikipedia site. This would mean any changes made by a new or unknown user would have to be approved by one of the site's editors before the changes were published. Whilst the changes are being mulled over, readers will be directed to earlier versions of the article. Wikimedia said the system was "essentially a buffer, to reduce the visibility and impact of vandalism on these articles". There have been several high-profile edits to pages that have given false or misleading information about a person. For example, in January this year the page of US Senator Robert Byrd falsely reported that he had died. If a page has a number of controversial edits or is repeatedly vandalised, editors can lock a page, so that it cannot be edited by everyone. For example, following initial reports of the death of Michael Jackson, editors had to lock down two pages to stop speculation about what had caused his death. "For these articles, flagged protection will actually make them more open," said Mr Peel. The decision had been made to focus on the pages of living people, he said, because they were the "most high-profile pages with the highest probability of causing harm". "[The trial] may also be extended to organisations which are currently operating," he added. The system has already been in operation on the German version of Wikipedia for more than a year. The changes to the English language site - which now has more than 3m pages - will be rolled out in the coming weeks, said Mr Peel. The changes will be discussed in Buenos Aires this week at the annual Wikimania conference.[/quote] Damn it! With this system in place, how will I be able to find recently discovered information, such as the news that Barack Obama "suxced a dick and tooki t up the ass"? Fuckin' Wikipedia!
There's always been a policy of fast reverts, this just concretes it.
So wikipedia has finally become a dictatorship? It was only a matter of time I suppose
Let's wait and see how it works.
Aw man... Does this mean I can't edit famous peoples' birth locations, birth dates, middle names, e.t.c. to make lazy kids get bad grades on their reports anymore? :frown:
This isn't really the Wikipedia spirit that made it work in the first place. The whole point is that it doesn't work in theory, but practice - so if you start making it too hard for editors, the whole thing will collapse.
This system isn't as bad as the're making it out to be. [editline]12:55PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Bryanrocks01;16958959]So wikipedia has finally become a dictatorship? It was only a matter of time I suppose[/QUOTE] It's not a dictatorship, the're just trying to increase the quality of articles.
Wikipedia is becoming more in control of the actual owners than the people. I remember when I wanted to add an article from German Wikipedia to the English one because the English one didn't have it. They said it was "not notable" so they deleted it. I thought their aim was to get as many articles as possible.
It's only on SOME pages, guys, not every page.
hurf de dur hurf wiekapedia is nazies
They'll only do it on the pages that have become edit wars or a regularly fucked with. It'll be a good thing, and will probably make less work for the editors.
Didn't they already do this?
I kept editing the Scientology article but it was instantly removed. Goddamn.
This system would work if the Wikipeeja editors weren't complete idiots.
I've edited several articles, and they keep it. Does this make me a nerd?
I don't mind this, currently the wikipedia isn't a creditable source, but this might change it.
Good, maybe now my teachers won't bitch about how wikipedia is not a reliable source for school work because anyone can edit it.
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks01;16958959]So wikipedia has finally become a dictatorship? It was only a matter of time I suppose[/QUOTE] What the fuck? Quality requires control.
This doesn't really change how Wikipedia works. Such edits that wouldn't pass this never last long anyway, they usually get reverted so fast nobody ever has a chance to see them, so they might as well have not happened in the first place. So in effect you're completely getting rid of edits that previously might as well not have taken place anyway, it just makes it easier for the editors. [QUOTE=Diet Kane;16960722]Good, maybe now my teachers won't bitch about how wikipedia is not a reliable source for school work because anyone can edit it.[/QUOTE] I doubt it. If they haven't accepted it already then its unlikely this will change anything. Statistically the chances of coming across a vandalized article on Wikipedia during a given session is about the same as opening up an encyclopedia and finding a badly written article. Most bad edits are so short lived that the chances of you being there after they are made and before they are reverted are usually slim. Encyclopedias and other more "acceptable" sources aren't the infalliable sources as some people (such schools) make them out to be. In fact they are almost as falliable, if not just as falliable, as Wikipedia in terms of errors for given amount of information. [b]The bottom line is, for most intents and purposes, most of the sources that are traditionally considered acceptable for school work are about as accurate as Wikipedia anyway. In fact, many of them are even less accurate. [/b] While this may sound extremely pessimistic to some, the harsh reality of this is that if you think Wikipedia is inaccurate then you'd better get used to that level of inaccuracy, because that is about as accurate as any information you're going to get under normal circumstances is going to be, and no respected encyclopedia or news source is going to change that as on average they are just as falliable. It's just that the people who are in charge of most other sources of information aren't as open or honest about their shortcomings. Unfortunately, accurate information costs a lot of money, and if you want anything that is truly more accurate than what "conventional sources", other Internet sources, and Wikipedia have to offer, you usually have to pay a LOT more for it. In the real world, how accurate your information can be depends on how much money you are willing to spend on it, and that still holds true today.
Fuck Wikipedia, I prefer h2g2. [editline]06:26PM[/editline] Which came before Wikipedia.
Wikipedos already have a boner over watching whenever an edit occurs so it's not like this'll make much of a difference.
I agree wikipedia has always been a shaky source of information, but I used it for school anyways :v: Lazy for the win. Their just trying to improve quality, so I agree with what their doing. :Dawkins102:
What's with all the Wikipedia hate. I love wikipedia.:iia:
[QUOTE=BAZ;16960706]I don't mind this, currently the wikipedia isn't a creditable source, but this might change it.[/QUOTE] It actually is. Some guys took random articles from Wikipedia and random articles from the Encyclopedia Brittanica and found they both had the same error rate. Unless you mean that other people won't let you credit it as a source, in which case they are retards.
I've never had trouble with vandalism, because so many people are there willing to stop it. The only time I've seen something like "lol hes ghey", it was reverted in about ten seconds.
[QUOTE=Negrul1;16968905]It actually is. Some guys took random articles from Wikipedia and random articles from the Encyclopedia Brittanica and found they both had the same error rate. Unless you mean that other people won't let you credit it as a source, in which case they are retards.[/QUOTE] It was a 6% margin of error, obviously makes it an unusable source
[QUOTE=Slig army;16958967]Aw man... Does this mean I can't edit famous peoples' birth locations, birth dates, middle names, e.t.c. to make lazy kids get bad grades on their reports anymore? :frown:[/QUOTE] Yes.
[QUOTE=Bryanrocks01;16958959]So wikipedia has finally become a dictatorship? It was only a matter of time I suppose[/QUOTE] Think about it, if more edits have too be approved, then it'll mean the information in the article is probably correct, and you won't get any shit randomly in an article like "This character is the gayest in the series" or "THIS CHARACTER SUCKS THAT CHARACTERS MASSIVE DICCCCCK". Whilst funny, it is rather annoying when trying to look something up.
Makes sense. Means it will be a bit more reliable and we may be one step closer to using it in schools again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.