http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1926826,00.html?cnn=yes
Late in August, Wikipedia announced that it was reining in its freewheeling ways. In several interviews, including many with TIME, officials at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that manages Wikipedia, explained that the user-edited online encyclopedia would soon impose restrictions on articles about living people. Under the new policy, anonymous Web editors would still be allowed to freely change biographical Wikipedia entries — but their changes would be made visible to readers only after an experienced Wikipedia volunteer had approved them. The plan, officials explained, would make the world's largest encyclopedia more accurate and fair, and would help prevent the high-profile hoaxes that have occasionally tarnished Wikipedia's reputation.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
There's only one problem with the new policy: "It's just completely wrong," says Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder. Wales says that reports of Wikipedia's clampdown to prevent errors have themselves been in error. Wikipedia's ruling body of volunteers never decided to impose restrictions on all articles about living people. Instead, the site will adopt "flagged protection" — the new method for requiring editorial approval before changes to Wikipedia go up — for a small number of articles, most likely on a case-by-case basis.
The plan — still under development and, like everything else about Wikipedia, in flux — means that the online encyclopedia will undergo a far less momentous change than was previously reported. Wikipedia has long imposed tight controls on articles about boldface names — entries on Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Britney Spears, among roughly 3,000 others, are "semi-protected," meaning they can't be edited by anonymous surfers. Wales says that, at least initially, the new flagged-protection plan will probably apply to the same set of controversial articles, which are most prone to vandalism. But the vast majority of articles — even the ones about relatively famous people, like your average U.S. Senator or late-night talk-show host — would remain open to alteration by Web surfers.
In some ways, then, the new policy will make Wikipedia more open to anonymous contributions, not less. Not only will novices to the site still be able to edit most articles, they'll also be able to make changes to protected pages like Obama's; their changes will become visible only if approved by senior Wikipedians. Under the current rules, people new to Wikipedia are blocked from editing protected articles.
FULL ARTICLE inside link.
Editing Wikipedia's New Edit Policy
Started by
Guest_Rico Suave_*
, Sep 30 2009 10:59 PM
8 replies to this topic
#1
Guest_Chicano_*
Guest_Chicano_*
Posted September 30, 2009 - 10:59 PM
#2
Helljumper
-
-
- 2,461 posts
76ers GM
- Joined: Jul 25, 2008
- Location:Riverside, CA
- Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant
Posted October 02, 2009 - 05:42 PM
Good news. I love Wikipedia and have never come across any unreliable information. If I did, it was usually on some obscure article where someone was just messing around and it was obvious. If someone tries vandalizing an article that's actually kind of important, not only will it be obvious but it will also be fixed nearly instantly. (For example, I once deleted the Phoenix Suns Wikipedia and replaced it with text saying Steve Nash was having an affair with one of my friends who's a Suns fan. It was fixed within 10 seconds).
The reason this is good news though is because it will help out Wikipedia's reputation. I hate it when teachers say you can't use Wikipedia because it's "unreliable." That's BS. It's more reliable than some other random website 99.999% of the time.
The reason this is good news though is because it will help out Wikipedia's reputation. I hate it when teachers say you can't use Wikipedia because it's "unreliable." That's BS. It's more reliable than some other random website 99.999% of the time.
#3
Guest_Chicano_*
Guest_Chicano_*
Posted October 02, 2009 - 10:38 PM
Fantastic point. I remember this clearly back in my day as well. Pissed me off. Wanted to slap some of my teachers. +1The reason this is good news though is because it will help out Wikipedia's reputation. I hate it when teachers say you can't use Wikipedia because it's "unreliable." That's BS. It's more reliable than some other random website 99.999% of the time.
#4
Imadogg
-
-
- 0 posts
Rookie
- Joined: Jul 24, 2008
Posted October 03, 2009 - 02:53 AM
Haha wtf, why would you want to slap your teachers for that. Wikipedia is usually reliable I agree but you definitely should not cite it. Most Wiki articles list their sources at the bottom so just hit those links and cite those sources and you're fine for class.Fantastic point. I remember this clearly back in my day as well. Pissed me off. Wanted to slap some of my teachers. +1
#5
Guest_Chicano_*
Guest_Chicano_*
Posted October 03, 2009 - 12:08 PM
^ Yeah that's right. I wanted to slap my teachers. Can't change the way I felt. I'm a strong wiki supporter. [expletive] citing the other sources & not wiki at all. BS.
#8
JEN
-
-
- 25,263 posts
Legend
- Joined: Sep 20, 2008
- Location:714
Posted October 03, 2009 - 05:31 PM
Haha wtf, why would you want to slap your teachers for that. Wikipedia is usually reliable I agree but you definitely should not cite it. Most Wiki articles list their sources at the bottom so just hit those links and cite those sources and you're fine for class.
Seriously... that's what I did. I would still use Wikipedia, but cite the actual source(s) itself, rather than Wikipedia itself.
#9
Guest_Chicano_*
Guest_Chicano_*
Posted October 03, 2009 - 11:47 PM
^ I did to some degree as well. Had no choice, UNFORTUNATELY. 
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
