More Wiki Than Ever 170
From the early days of Wikipedia, we were forced to do something that we did not like to do: protect (lock) pages. For a long time, whenever there was a major editing dispute requiring a cool-down time, or a sudden spate of vandalism to an article, the community administrators of Wikipedia were forced to put pages into a state where no one could edit them. (Admins could technically edit them, but by social custom did not, in order to preserve the level playing field between admins and ordinary users.)
Protection was a good way to prevent further vandalism, but it did unfortunately still allow the general public to see the vandalism.
After many years of this, we recognized that protection was too un-wiki for us, and so the community devised a new software feature: semi-protection. An article which is semi-protected is more open than an article which is protected, because it is open for editing for all but anonymous editors and the very newest of accounts. This innovation has been very popular in Wikipedia precisely because it allowed us to be more wiki, more open, than when we were forced to lock articles.
Encouraged by this development, and after carefully watching the use of the feature and finding it to be a net improvement, members of the German community in particular thought creatively about how we might do an even better job of openness and therefore quality. Could we simultaneously open editing still further, while also dealing better than ever with the problem that protection and semi-protection were designed to solve?
After much discussion, a clever and elegant innovation was found. This innovation holds forth the promise of Wikipedia being able to open the front page for editing for the first time in 5 years! And at the same time, it provides a finer tool for preventing much of the vandalism that had unfortunately slipped through to the general public, while eliminating the need for semi-protection!
The new feature will allow the community, using the same sorts of procedures and norms that we have used for years to determine semi-protection and protection status, to flag certain versions of articles as "non-vandalized", and these versions are what will be shown to users who are not logged in. The feature will be tested in the normal manner of all new features at Wikipedia, with a simple quiet introduction and a period of testing and evaluation within the community.
We expect the following benefits from this innovation:
- Wikipedia will be more wiki than ever, in the sense that for the first time in years, we expect that nearly ALL pages will be open to editing by ANYONE, even non-logged-in users. This means the almost complete elimination of the editing restrictions we have been forced to have for years.
- We have good reason to believe that the primary incentive for most vandalism, as the primary incentive for most graffiti in the real world, is that the vandalism can be seen by the general public. Vandals seek to shock people. The new feature will deprive them of that benefit, and we expect to see a corresponding drop in the total amount of vandalism that the community has to deal with. This is an excellent example of our philosophy of trusting the general public to do the right thing when given the right incentives, and an illustration of why openness and transparency is better than control.
- Although not all pages will have the 'non-vandalized versions' feature enabled, we expect that it will be enabled quickly by the community on all the pages that are currently semi-protected due to being popular vandalism targets. Thus, we will achieve our aim of preventing the general public from seeing vandalized versions (as we do now on these articles), but at the same time allowing open editing of these articles.
A quick summary to make this even more clear:
- PROTECTION - NO ONE can edit, NO ONE can affect the public version
- SEMI-PROTECTION - all except new users and anons can edit, all except new users and anons can affect the public versions
- VERSION FLAGGING - ANYONE can edit, all except new users and anons can affect the public versions
As you can see, each step of this chain allows MORE people to do MORE things, rather than less. Each step of this chain is becoming MORE wiki, not LESS wiki.
The news media has an unfortunate temptation to follow a story arc that goes something like this. "Open editing is impossible. It worked for a little while at Wikipedia, but now even Wikipedia is admitting that it does not work, so they are closing off public editing step by step. This proves that our traditional model is best in the end."
The fact that this story arc has no relationship to the reality of changes in Wikipedia has not stopped them. I am hopeful that this post will catch enough attention that journalists will start to grasp the real revolution that is taking place here.
Article updated (Score:5, Insightful)
There's been quite a lot of discussion about this article over on the Wikipedia mailing lists, and as a result the details of what the German group are proposing to do are a lot clearer.
Rather than hold any pending edits until they are approved, edits will still be allowed to any unlocked page on the site.
Unregistered users will not automatically see these pages when they visit, so that the chances that someone will inadvertently come across a vandalised page should be reduced, but the pages will still be available if someone wants to see them.
There's no decision yet as to who will be able to "approve" a page, and of course the English-language Wikipedia is simply watching what happens in Germany and seeing how it works, so there will be no change for those of us who use the English version.
This clarifies a number of the points I raised in the article. I was wrong to say that "Under the new approach, page edits will no longer be immediately applied to pages", since the changes will be there, and someone who wants to see the latest edits will be able to do so.
However for most users, the page they see will not be the latest edit but the latest approved page, so my wider point that this would mark a significant shift in the "wikiness" of the site if it was universally adopted still holds.
In the end, the success of Wikipedia depends on the willingness of large numbers of us to write, edit, fix and expand articles all over the site.
Whether the technology which makes this possible is a wiki or a more conventional editorial process is less important than the project itself, which has provided millions of people with a (mostly reliable) source of information that can transform their lives - or just help with their school projects.
Wales didn't "set the record straight".
If anything this is not becoming more "open" or "wiki" than ever before. It is, however slightly, less wiki than it was. Now, make no mistake, this plan may ultimately be a very good thing, but to say that restricting and approving edits, and having the default page visible to normal people browsing only be the latest "approved" page, is becoming "more of a wiki" is a little bit disingenuous. It would be more accurate to say that it might be a better model, and we're exploring it.
The most open state for a wiki, fundamentally, is to allow, and immediately publish, all edits. If Wikipedia is backing away from that, that's not becoming "more of a wiki".
The most useful state for a wiki like Wikipedia, however, may be some reasonable ratcheting back that makes it the most accurate, functional, and stable source of information for all users.
It seems like they're stuck unnecessarily on trying to defend this decision, when some type of balance like this may ultimately be the best.
Even if it makes it "less of a wiki".
Update (Score:5, Insightful)
That's debatable.
Protection and semi-protection only applied to a very small proportion of pages. This new mechanism of "approving" the page that is default-visible will now likely be applied to many more pages than protection or semi-protection ever did, precisely because it's so tempting to use. Yes, I realize that there are ways to see the most recent edits. That's irrelevant to most people. They'll be seeing the latest "approved" page, and that's it.
Now, I still say that this may be a good thing.
But it's at most misleading, and at least subjective, to say this makes it "more wiki".
Judgments of Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well (Score:4, Insightful)
The complaints of conservative outsiders have to be used in a productive fashion. Ask them to donate staff to QA wikipedia.
Wikipedia has almost no employees. A public library gets more public funding than wikipedia. I think as Wikipedia fulfills an important or key task for society, the governments shoudl spent a few dollars on it.
So if they complain about Wikipedia next time ask for more public funds. And deny any approach which compromises the WIKI-success model.
Re:wtf? (Score:3, Insightful)
A Security Inversion (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditional security (i.e. non-communal) says "only privileged users can make changes", and "the more privileged you are, the more you can change".
This security inverts that concept and focuses not on who can change what, but rather on how pervasive their changes are once they have made them. If the old model is a Privilege-Heirarchy model, then this is a Popularity-Broadcasting model. It says "anyone can change anything", and "only if you matter will your changes be seen by anyone else who matters".
It removes the temptation to vandalize anonymously, because anonymous folks have no rep and therefore no power. It idealizes having a good reputation, because therein lies the path to the biggest podium.
Re:Article updated (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that version-flagging will be seen as less "drastic" than protection, and, over time, will be applied more than protection would have been.
So when you say "some pages", what if "some" is "x" for 5, and "10x" for 7?
I'd agree that if version-flagging was never used more, or more quickly, than protection/semi-protection would have been, which is a future that I guess can't necessarily be predicted until we see what happens with the German team's proposal, that you could argue it to be "more wiki". But if far more pages are version-flagged than ever would have been protected, which is what I believe will happen, and significantly so, it's not "more wiki".
It's easy. Just stay logged in. (Score:5, Insightful)
I, as well as most other folks, just use Wikipedia as "read-only", to look things up. I don't really envision myself being the helpful type, as you are. So there's really no reason for us to be logged in.
But for those like you who want to help Wikipedia, just stay logged in! I don't know if they have a "keep me logged in" feature, but I imagine they do
Re:Judgments of Wikipedia (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone who stops to think about it will agree that Wikipedia can never replace traditional reference material. But the danger lies in that not everyone will stop to think about it, and that many people ARE using it to replace traditional references. This wealth of unreliable information has the potential to cause even more societal damage than the previous difficulty of finding reliable information.
Some reasons it's a bad idea (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Vouching (Score:5, Insightful)
If that was the case, that would be rather unfortunate. Just because Penrose has verified that a certain page is accurate as best as he knows, doesn't mean that it doesn't have room for improvement. Especially in a field such as Cosmology where changes are so frequent and substantial. It would not be good for any sort of marking that would hinder future development of the page.
Re:Update (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem Wikipedia ever had is that too many people can't tell the difference between "wiki" and "encyclo." The genius of this plan is that it makes Wikipedia behave more like an encyclopedia for the people who expect it to behave like one, or don't realize that it's fundamentally different from Britannica. There's at least some guarantee (or at least good faith effort) that all the pages will be reasonably accurate, and it's going to be a lot harder for people to vandalize it and confuse users in the process.
However, it gives a big opt-out for people who want it to be more open than that - all they have to do is get an account and log in. For these people, Wikipedia will now be a whole lot more wiki-like simply because, if everything goes as planned, every single one of Wikipedia's pages can now be open for editing. And the whole reason why they are now free to do things that way is because the people who don't "get" wikis can now be insulated from the site's inherently volatile nature, leaving everyone else to enjoy their wiki-ness without disturbing passers-by.
It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
A page gets edited, new page is tagged 'beta', registered users check the page to make sure its clean and tag it 'stable' where it is then released to the rest of the world.
The fact that anyone can become a registered user makes this open-source, so the slashdot community should be behind it 100%!!
Re:Judgments of Wikipedia (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignore Wikipedia for a moment, lets look at medical texts. Anyone can go and in the appropriate place purchase a medical text that tells them a-z what illness they have, self-diagnosis is just an index-search away. Do people do it? No, unless perhaps they are a hypochondriac. So are people likely to use Wikipedia as a medical reference rather than going to a Doctor? No.
Are you saying it would be reasonable to use wikipedia as a medical reference for self diagnosis if it was 100% accurate? We place our trust in certain professions to help us in certain situations.
Next time there is a fire in my house, I will look up Fire Fighting on wikipedia, I'm sure it will help me, afterall who *really* needs a fire service when you have a wiki at your disposal.
Re:Judgments of Wikipedia (Score:1, Insightful)
Future Versions Proposal (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's responses to some of your points:
I suspect that the vast majority of hits to Wikipedia are users with no account who are there purely for research purposes. Wikipedia comes up first in many Google and Yahoo! searches.
My proposal addresses this by making the edit available, just hidden by default. It also eliminates the separate flagging process by letting anybody who could make an instant edit in the current system make an instant edit to a protected article.
In this system, anonymous users can see vandalism - they just have to go looking for it. A logged-in user or admin can trivially "bless" the revert by a null edit, which are sometimes used now for other reasons.
It may, but since the next valid editor has to take care of it before saving their edit, I don't think it'd be too much of a problem.
I don't think it's perfect, but I think this proposal could work given sufficient buy-in by editors. It's fairly easy to understand, uses concepts editors are already familiar with, and steers users into the desired behavior (less vandalism, and more attention to articles before they're changed).
Re:Judgments of Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with all of Wikipedia's critics is that they view it as potentially replacing traditional reference material, when really it mainly just replaces a bunch of even less reliable material. As an additional benefit, its open model even leads most people to be more careful and skeptical of what they read there, which they might not be with other sources. Wikipedia is a net win for propagation of accurate information.
Re:Update (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Judgments of Wikipedia (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia's biggest strengths are these: 1) It is a large (popular), central point for information 2) Because it is large and popular people try and make it accurate ( 3) The number of people who wish to do good out number those who with to do bad on Wikiepeida )
Re:Update (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a fine assertion, but I don't see any real evidence for it. The Wikipedia editing community is generally widely opposed to any sort of editing restriction. And even if the number of restricted pages ends up going up, it's not clear to me that a moderately larger number of less restricted pages will mean a net increase in restrictiveness. If a lot of the current protected and semi-protected pages use this new system, then it will, as Wales asserts, be a net increase in openness.
Personally, that's my bet. Looking at the list of protected pages [wikipedia.org], I'd bet the ones related to edit wars will stay protected; those are temporary anyhow. But most of the rest, including almost all of the semi-protected ones, could move to this new status.
Re:It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
But open source software is not written like this. Instead the code is watched over by extremely knowledgeable people, and changes are made after full testing has been done to confirm functionality.
Open source software engineering does not involve anybody just registering and altering the live code (even with versioning)
It doesn't matter, Wikipedia is not opensource even in the sense that "DeadboltX" means it, because if you make too many changes, even if they are correct, you'll get banned as a "troll", a "vandal" or a "sockpuppet" of some other banned editor.
Will it actually work. (Score:1, Insightful)
If I'd write that the president of Belgium is OJ Simpson someone will quickly notice it and hardly anyone who sees it will belive.
On the other hand if I'd write that the president of Azerbaijan is Khuj Ebany, then it's likely it will stay unnoticed for a long time, and someone who doesn't know much about the country will have no problem beliving it, as it's a plausible, turkish sounding name.
Re:What about the Colbert effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess you're American? I mean, wtf, "some European country"? It was Hungary, which has a population of about 10 million, and last time I checked 2 million wasn't significantly more than 10 million.
Re:Wikipedia is broken (Score:4, Insightful)