Wikipedia Semi-Protection Begins 326
seanvaandering writes "Admins began applying their recently announced 'Wikipedia semi-protection' feature this week. The first articles to be semi-protected were George W. Bush, Hitler, and Jesus Christ, barring the newest 1% of all users and anonymous visitors from modifying the article (apparently Satan didn't make the cut). Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"
There's some sort of joke.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:2)
A better joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Candidate A associates with crooked politicians, and consults with anthologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.
Candidate C is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt
Candidate B is Winston Churchill
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler
Sorry it doesn't involve bush, but it shows you can never judge a book by its cover!
And another ones for kicks:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Because she gave birth to Beethoven.
Re:A better joke (Score:3, Informative)
You're not serious? Roosevelt consulted with anthologists? [thefreedictionary.com] That takes him right out of my book!
Re:A better joke (Score:2, Insightful)
My two cents...
Re:A better joke (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/twoquest.htm [snopes.com]
Speculative abortion (Score:3, Interesting)
But maybe a different woman who did opt to terminate her pregnancy might have
spared the world another Stalin or Hitler. This is the sort of speculative "What if?" game that neither side can win, so it's best not to play at all.
I think an assumption is being made that baby Adolf was destined from birth to become "Adolf Hitler, der Fuhrer and Killer of Millions", and that if only he hadn't been born the Holocaust would not have happene
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:5, Funny)
Dubyah and Hitler are at the pearly gates on judgement day, with Jesus conducting a group admissions interview. One of them says "I did my best to do the will of God, conducting war against your enemies, securing my homeland, and campaigning against the godless.", the other says "But he's Hitler!"
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:3, Funny)
Jesus sez: "I will grant you each one wish"
Hitler: Me first! I wish that the neo-nazis of Germany rise up, take over the country and then invade America!
Jesus: Your wish is granted. Your turn Dubya.
But Dubya is stunned by the apparent granting of Hitler's outrageous wish and exclaims loudly: "Because of him Germany gets to take over my co
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:2)
Why can't I get stranded on a desserted island?
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush are pretty much the first article a 12 year old will look up on Wikipedia. These youngsters are so open to information fed through the media, that when they fill in or click random links, their brain gives priority to the above mentionen names.
Blocking those pages could mean, they will stop vandalizing, or that they will start vandalizing what is next on their subconcious treshold.
lets see, trying to find the biggest icons todays culture,
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:2)
Oh wait, Jesus was the only regular drinker in the bunch.
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:2)
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:5, Informative)
But if NAT or a proxy is involved different legitimate users may come from the same IP. And if somebody wants to perform vandalism, it doesn't take much to read the page five times tunneling through five different hosts. I could easilly access the site from 40 different IP adresses from a handfull of different networks. (And that is counting only those to which I have legitimate access).
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't. But then again I don't have any incentive to vandalise Wikipedia, so I'm not the person you should be asking. I'm afraid there does exist a few persons that are both intelligent and willing to use quite some time on performing vandalism. Luckily I think they are rare.
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't know what it is about slashdot that makes people want to post this kind of ritual Chimpybushhitler obeisance to moonbattery every fucking article, no matter what the subject is. Unfortunately, there's no medicine to cure this kind of idiocy - certainly reality doesn't seem to help. If Bush were really a fascist along the lines of Hitler you would have a
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The key similarities between Bush and Hitler are that both are fierce nationalists pushing agendas that include aggressive foreign policies and a reduction in civil rights. The conditions in Germany following WW1 gave Hitler the support he needed; the conditions in America following 911 gave Bush the support he needed. Both societies were deflated and wanted to rally around a strong leader. Both leaders used that to their advantage, breaking long-standing rules, purportedly for purposes of strengthening the nation.
Nationalism and intimidation is how Hitler did his thing. It's creepy as hell to watch the President deflect pertinent questions with patriotic jargon. It's even creepier when DHS agents bang on people's doors who aren't doing anything wrong. Of course Hitler went farther, and of course W isn't the first president to do such things, but that doesn't make it any less creepy.
Bush vs. Hitler?! :-) What a joke.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler was a fierce racist, not just nationalist. Bush obviously has no problems with Americans of any race -- just look at his administration. You can't dismiss Rice, Gonzales, Powell, Alito as "uncle toms". There is no nationalism as in "America for Americans" either -- if anything, Bush is blasted by dimwits from Left and Right for being too easy on the immigrants (legal and otherwise).
And then, of course, there is Godwin's Law [killfile.org]. In short, you may truly hate George W. Bush, but he is not sending (nor would like to send) millions of innocent people to gas chambers. To compare someone to Hitler, the accusation must of that kind of gravity.
Re:Bush vs. Hitler?! :-) What a joke.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that's his argument, too. Hey I like black people, look at Colin Powell, he's black. Well, maybe you should as
G.W. Bush vs. Hitler (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest difference between G.W. Bush and Hitler is that Hitler is widely considered one of the most skilled orators of all time...
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:5, Funny)
From Bill Maher:
New Rule: George Bush isn't Hitler.
In the contest sponsored by MoveOn.org, two entries compared Bush to Hitler, ignoring the first rule for being taken seriously by grown-ups, which is don't call everyone you don't like, Hitler.
Bush is not Hitler. For one thing, Hitler was a decorated frontline combat veteran. Also, in the election that brought him to power in 1933, Hitler got more votes than the other candidate. And Hitler had a mustache.
So let's all take a rest from playing the Hitler card. Unless we're talking about Saddam Hussein. Now, that guy was Hitler.
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:3, Interesting)
by Thom Hartmann
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign i
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's some sort of joke.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, the alternate explanation: both sides were right...
He-man (Score:4, Funny)
It's protected now (Score:3, Informative)
I just semi-protected the He-man article (Score:3, Informative)
Does this mark the end? (Score:5, Informative)
It marks the end of the free encyclopedia that can be edited by any idiot. Now, it can only be edited by 99% of idiots and most importantly, those specific people that spend the time actually editing the articles.
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe there is a dream which still survives among some idealists, that everyone, everywhere, should be able to contribute equally, and with equally fruitful productivity, to a knowledge database, absolutely regardless of any ability they possess to summarise and intepret knowledge in a useful and logical fashion. But for those with a realistic outlook, Wiki article writing ends up looking like any other skill set. It isn't intuitive. It takes a bit of experience. And the more experience you have, the better you'll be at it. Closing off, in effect, those with no experience whatsoever, and requiring you be reqistered at least for a few days to edit specific articles, ultimately, is no loss.
I've tried to be fair on Wiki, but (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I've tried to be fair on Wiki, but (Score:2)
Genuine political discussion on the internet is impossible, chanting slogans, preaching to the choir and insulting your enemies is about it.
BTW how is it that conservatives still have a persecution complex? I don't really understand it myself, they have pretty much owned the political arena in the US for about 25 years now
Re:I've tried to be fair on Wiki, but (Score:2)
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, it looks like they've taken a page from the Slashdot moderation system [slashdot.org], which only takes something like the earliest 90% of accounts as possible moderators. This system (with certain exceptions, e.g., +1, Funny) has always worked pretty well for me, and I'm confident this one (with tweaking) will as we
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:2)
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no training whatsoever.
And the admins have developed a knee-jerk culture. They're totally immune to the idea that someone is being honest. And when you try to point out that the admin is being dishonest, they label you a troll and other admins conspire to keep you from defending yourself.
There's no real training for admins, either. And no realistic way to take away adminship (try instituting arbitration from behind a sequence of blocks; not everyone can just change their IP, and doing so is a blockable offense anyway). So there's no incentive for them to learn to be humble and respect their ability to enrage honest people. They know they can taunt and dissemble and never face repercussions as long as they aren't openly profane. And I've never seen one yet apologize for abusing their authority.
They don't have any authority, anyway. Their job is to mechanically apply the policies, because the software can't decide what is and is not an appropriate use of the system. But they've gotten way out of hand.
The primary problem with the system is that there are hundreds of admins, and it takes just one with a mistaken apprehension of a user's action to cause a problem. It's impossible to get literally every one of them to agree on anything, so any user is liable to be abused at any moment. And virtually no user is capable of knowing the exact behavioral keyhole through which to walk in order to get an admin defrocked.
Because of the one-sided nature of a debate in which one party can totally silence the other, noise is introduced into the system.
It's entirely likely that the signal-to-noise ratio of the Wikipedia will drop (get worse) as time goes on, and it's not the fault of the users, it's the fault of the system and the admins.
Re:Does this mark the end? No. (Score:3, Informative)
Hi.
I see here (SlashDot) and other source of information recurrent incorrect statements about Wikipedia. The summary is: there IS training, there IS responsibility, there IS watchdog system, this is not anarchy. Let's walk some statements.
* And the admins have developed a knee-jerk culture.
Incorrect. A persistent bad contribution needs to be slowed down quickly for it's damaging quickly. This will happen only if a user repeatedly contribute badly, after several attempt of communication and explanatio
Too Hard Basket (Score:5, Interesting)
I run a small not-for-profit educational and science facility which receives many visitors. One kind visitor decided he was doing us a favour by adding a Wiki article about our small organisation. Soon after an unfortunate soul suffering from a bi-polar disorder and who we've had problems with before "attacked" our Wiki entry, at first adding unpleasant claims about us, then simply blanking the article. The Wiki entry had become a very important first-referrer for us and our website, and so we wasted a lot of our time dealing with the issue. In the end I submitted our entry to the Vote for Deletion list, but even this turned out to be contentious, and lead to even more problems. After months our article was finally removed, but not before it had caused problems out of all proportion to what it really is.
I believe the Wikipedia is a great idea in theory but mostly unworkable in reality.
Re:Too Hard Basket (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a coder and I can't imagine why Wikipedia would want to semi-protect select articles, and not *all* articles. (Bitflag vs Micromanagement)
Re:Too Hard Basket (Score:2)
Restricting editors to non-anons is hardly going to slash their userbase. Idealism seems to trump pragmatism in the wikimedia world.
Re:Too Hard Basket (Score:2, Funny)
Let's see, a web site dedicated to amassing all of the worlds knowledge in a single source is acting Idealistic. DUH!
Re:Too Hard Basket (Score:2)
The idea of using account age selectively is that it will tend to get vandals to mess with low-profile pages and be banned before they are able to mess with high-profile pages. If they couldn't edit any pages then you have no opportunity to filter out accounts before they are able to edit high-profile pages.
Of course, trolls can just sign up for an account every day, and
Re:Too Hard Basket (Score:5, Interesting)
Because many of the editors started anonymously, and liked it.
Because the idea of being able to click, click, correct, click and have your change there is immediately attractive, and signing up is not.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anonymous_use
and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pu
Re:Too Hard Basket (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I first learned about the Wiki concept when I made an anonymous edit to Wikipedia correcting a typo. There needs to be a way that people can figure out how it works without signing up first. A signup process is a powerful deterrent.
IMDb doesn't know this, for example. Clicking so much as "yes" or "no" on "Did this comment help you?" -- or even "Read more comme
Re:Too Hard Basket (Score:3, Interesting)
The right mechanism IMHO is probably something like: Timed stabilisation mechanism [wikipedia.org]; and that can be applied across the whole wiki.
No (Score:3, Informative)
This has been gone over several times now. This will be used to bridge the gap between no protection at all and total lockage (i.e. only an administrator can lock it).
In fact, I expect this will promote more freedom, since pages which would have been put to administrator-only locking will now be under this type of protection, where most users can still edit the page.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
They are probably taking the wait and see approach not to scare off users. Ultimatly much more needs to be done to get the problem under control. Filters need to be in place to stop the common GNAA type of garbage. Also, they _really_ need a more sensible heirchy. Mod points maybe? That way, people with mod points can tag certain content as garbage. Then a higher up can just browse content marked as garbage and lock articles, ban users, etc etc.
The current system is working ok, but to keep good content contributers for the long term we need to get some sensible restrictions and a better authority heirchy.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but this suggestion is one of the more elitist ones I've heard. I've know PhD professors who were dumb as a doornail - in their supposed specialty! How they got a PhD, I don't know.. but they got one.
Protection (Score:2)
Sorry, but _there are_ other big wikipedias out there even without any control to american laws. Even CIA can't change pages on that (but they could kidnap wales of course).
Second, locking big pages that are changed daily by pranks does not mean you can't change them. Is registration such a big step? Even your IP is not really anonymous unless you use a prox
Re:Protection (Score:2)
And I'm trying to figure out why you wouldn't want a publicly contributed knowledge base of everything supported by the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Just think about it for a while.
Cheers.
Re:Protection (Score:2)
There are of course some pros that wikipedia is based in america. but it could even exist if it would have been founded in mexico for example.
It was bound to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's very sensible and over time will become more aggressive. I think it's quite akin to how slashdot started. Slashdot started with good intentions. Then the trolls came. Slashdot had to figure out a way to deal with trolls, and over the period of years, has the trolls mostly under control. If you browse at -1 you can see how many trolls really post on slashdot. Wikipedia's first step really needs to be just to get the trolls under control. Once you weed out that crowd and have (semi) mature individuals serious about the content, it's much easier to improve the quality of wikipedia. I think we want wikipedia's only inaccurate content to be true unintentional mistakes. Not trolls and edit wars.
Re:It was bound to happen (Score:2)
Hahaha!
/.
It's been, what, 6 months or so now since the most blatant trolling stopped getting modded to +5? I sure as hell hope Wikipedia will have much more success, and in much less than the 10+ years it took Slashdot. And still, there's a lot of terribly bad information, and less-obvious trolls that get modded-up all the time on
Sweet, sweet irony (Score:5, Funny)
They're more or less complete (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also a good thing to have to keep the vandals out, it's been rampant since the John Siegenthaler controversy.
Some articles don't need to be editted... (Score:2)
Idiotic (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
I wish they would switch the email feature on, so that Wikipedians are informed of changes who do not log in every day.
Re:Idiotic (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Wikipedia needs to consider a reputation system so that editors can vote for good/bad
Re:Idiotic (Score:2)
Re:Idiotic (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that all user who want to post should be registered but I think the 6 day cooling off period is going to turn away a lot of people that would otherwise help (me for instance). I have written a couple of articles and edited a few (some edits were to remove abuse). I have done all of that without registering simply because it was quicker but I would still have done it if I had to register first. I wouldn't have done any of it if I had to register and then wait x days simply because that's not how I help with wikipedia. Some people devote hours to writting articles for wikipedia but a lot of us just help out now and then.
If you _really_ want to stop abuse I suggest this method: Everyone has to be registered to write or edit an article. Each account has a score associated with it. New accounts have zero points the top posters have 100. Every time an edit / addition is made it has to be checked and score 200 points to be accepted. Until it is accepted only registered people can view it. Each registered person can vote for the article either + or -. The number of points awarded to or removed from the article is the number of points assiciated with the moderators account. Each time you get an article or edit accepted your account scores one point. Articles that score -200 are removed and 10 points are deducted from the users account. So, for instance, an article could be accepted with as little as 2 votes from top submitters or 200 votes from people with one accepted article. It might slow down the acceptance of articles but it would ensure that there is no trolling and keep the immediacy in it.
Troll summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Troll summary (Score:2)
There are quite a few semi-protected articles... (Score:2, Informative)
Does this mark the end? (Score:3, Informative)
No. It marks the beginning of someone taking responsibility for spreading false information.
Re:Does this mark the end? (Score:3, Informative)
Message (Score:4, Funny)
Censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Those mechanisms aren't intended to kill the "anyonecanedit", but the "anyonecanvandalize"
We Can Only Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
We can hope so.
Letting everyone contribute means your standards sink to the lowest common demoninator, which is lieing, cheating, self-promotion, and the demonstration of ignorance.
Rather like Slashdot.
Yes, of course it's the end of it (Score:4, Interesting)
Possible negative consequences include creeping de-wikification, if this spreads to pages which are called "finished" or just spreads to a lot of pages.
Possible positive effects include reduced vandalism, though if a few pages are affected, it seems unlikely to have a significant effect on total vandalism levels.
So long as it is contained to a hundred or two pages it seems unlikely that semi-protection will do significant harm. It is likely to decrease the chance of seeing silly vandalism on a few hot target pages.
Personally, I'm more worried about one person choosing to discard 14,000 pages a month based on the story of the day. It seems fairly unlikely, unfortunately, that we'll see Mr. Seigenthaler apologising for the lasting harm he's indirectly caused by provoking that reaction over a silly joke making unbelievable claims about him. So, the correctable and somewhat quality-controlled version of the web is that much weaker.
For anyone who missed it in the fuss at the time: the offensive content in the Seigenthaler article was first removed by an anonymous contributor. What one put in, another removed. Which is exactly how it's supposed to work.
Re:Yes, of course it's the end of it (Score:2)
Somebody had to say it. He just happens to be the one who was in the right place at the right time.
Although he's somewhat harsher on Wikipedia than I would like, Tycho did a very good job explaining why this whole system (allowing errors, and waiting for someone to correct them) just doesn't work ou
new system (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to edit Hitler you must frist be a proven, intelligent, useful contributer. If you want to write an entry on the superconduction uber widget, knock yourself out. My 2
Re:new system (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, he could edit some other articles about the 3rd Reich or whatever but it nevertheless defeats the purpose of a collaborative encyclopedia where everyone can contribute his/her specific expertise.
A real life example why Wikipedia does not work. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know there are allegations floating around that the South African Secret Service was involved with a bombing like that so where it said in the article "It has been proven that..." I changed that to "It has been alleged that...".
Five minutes later, some helpful individual reverted the article back to its former state and claimed I was vandalizing the page.
I went back to the article and changed it back to that the bombing is alleged to have been Botha's work when someone cut in again and added a link to the infamous "Truth and Reconcilation Council" that had somehow proven beyond doubt that Botha was guilty of doing that.
Now the problem is, whatever the "TRC" comes up with, it will always be the ANC's version of what happened, largely and mainly because the ANC is funding and staffing it, meaning the link to the "hard evidence" is worth crap. However someone who doesn't know any better will swallow the pitch, hook and sinker.
A group of ideological crazed people with admin rights on Wikipedia have set their minds to the proliferation of the political correct version of history and they'll tolerate zero deviation from that.
And this is, in a nutshell, why Wikipedia does not work.
I was going to post this with my slashdot ID but I don't want people to associate my slashdot ID with what I use on Wikipedia. If somebody would donate a mod point to this article I would be much obliged.
Re:A real life example why Wikipedia does not work (Score:2)
What's next? It is alleged that the Nazis killed millions of Jews? It is alleged that Stalin sent people to the Gulags? Feel free to include a section on groups that are notable for disputing the findings, but changing verified and legally va
Re:A real life example why Wikipedia does not work (Score:2)
Wow! Scary isn't it? You don't happen to be from China, FhnuZoag????
[OT] P.W. Botha's crimes against humanity (Score:3, Insightful)
First, what is "legally the truth" in South Africa certainly has no force over Wikipedia -- otherwise, Wikipedia would have to publish only glowing reports about countries like North Korea, or about e.g. China's human rights records, where the "official truth" is rather at odds with the known facts.
In this part
Re:A real life example why Wikipedia does not work (Score:3, Informative)
1. Find reputable news source reporting the disagreement - the more reputable the better. Possibly several.
2. Change the text to use words to the effect of "The TRC concluded that whatever, a finding which is disputed [cite dispute with source].
3. Include the source link in the references and also if useful in your edit comments.
It's a lot less likely that a well sourced edit will be reverted and if it is, the next stop is the talk page to point out that all substantial view
The problem with rampant reverting (Score:5, Informative)
time for a name change (Score:2)
Re:time for a name change (Score:2)
Re:time for a name change (Score:2)
This is a pretty minor limitation. (Score:4, Insightful)
In terms of practical limitations, that's pretty minor - and if it keeps the site maintainable and useful - it gets my vote.
As a matter of principle - well, Wiki isn't about giving people the right to free speech - it's about getting facts into an encyclopedia.
It is believed that the encyclopedia will be better if everyone can edit any article at any time because 'Many eyes make all bugs shallow'. Even as an uninformed layperson looking up Aardvarks, I can spot a spelling mistake in an article and fix it right then and there...but in the case of the kinds of articles being restricted here, there are already PLENTY of eyes on them and adding more won't improve the encyclopedia.
From that perspective, how likely is it that someone who has authoritative knowledge about those few articles will know something that is verifiable that can't wait one week to be posted?
You might argue that (say) some insider in the pay of George Bush needs to be able to post especially incriminating evidence that he/she just discovered onto the Wiki page - and might need to do so either urgently - or anonymously. But that kind of information is unverifiable and falls under the 'no original research' criteria which would eliminate it from Wiki anyway. Wiki isn't a news site - information of that kind should be posted elsewhere first - and only end up in the encyclopedia when it's been verified, understood, etc.
People who visit the Wiki and search on 'George Bush' should not expect to find the latest, juicy tidbits about him there. It's an encyclopedia - they should expect to find historical information that's reasonably well established. It should contain information ABOUT any controversy without actually being controversial itself.
The VAST amount of work that goes on in the Wiki is far more mundane. The other day, I looked up Red Squirrels - found that a sentance about the number of young they bear was incomprehensible - so I looked the information up on half a dozen web pages about squirrels to find out the truth - and corrected the sentence right then and there.
Red Squirrels - not reigning US monarchs^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpresidents.
Re:This is a pretty minor limitation. (Score:3)
That's mostly true. News coverage should be edited at Wikinews [wikinews.org]
What I mean by "mostly" is that there is a small amount of acceptable news posted at Wikipedia. That news usually relates to disasters and similar topics.
For example, the Wikipedia acting-like-a-newspaper coverage of Hurricane Katrina was incredibly well done compared to most
The long view is what applies here (Score:2)
So what if there is some vandalism. Yes, vandalism is bad. What is important is whether the Wikipedia is useful. I find it useful, not perfect. How many people on this planet are using it now? As more and more people use it, the ethos of actually valuing it will increase. Right now amongst certain kiddies and manics there is some "cool" or "control" that arises from vandalizing or posting a screed. Gra
What is really needed is "off broadway" pedia... (Score:2)
There can be value found in such alternative entries and editing. Perhaps even the application of some sort of slashdot like moderation system.
Maybe its not time for that yet but doesn't hurt to plan for the future.
Why not meta-moderate? (Score:3, Insightful)
anyone can edit? (Score:2)
Anyone with a computer. Think about it.
I have the "Large Soviet Encyclopedia" (Score:4, Interesting)
And my grandfather, of course, abided...
It's no different than Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
Any president is going to be the target of political activists who wish to defame or mock the opposition party. I'm sure Bill Clinton's profile is guarded just as Bush's.
The fact is nobody wants KKK members editing MLK's profile either.
Suck it up. There's trolls on the internet and Wiki is doing something to control them.
Re:It's a matter of subject (Score:2)
Re:1st (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia really needed to do something like this, and banning anonymous changes to a few reasonably stable articles seems like a decent compromise. The articles can still be edited by most people who are into wiki.
That being said, all this outcry over a couple articles being changed is way over hyped. That nature study that showed that it was nearly as accurate (in science articles) as the online encyclopedia britannica just confirmed that.
Re:GWB, AH, JC ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GWB, AH, JC ... (Score:2)
Re:That always happens (Score:2)
democracy - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Nowhere in that definition does it state that the people cannot preclude the participation of some disruptive and/or harmful subset of those same people.