Would Wikipedia Be The Same With Edits Needing Approval?
from the loses-some-of-the-appeal dept
Wikipedia has apparently been testing a system by which new edits from most users don't show up for most visitors until they get approved by someone with "authority." The plan sounds similar to one that was suggested a year ago -- but in that case, the new edits would simply be shaded in a different color to warn people that they hadn't been reviewed. That seems much more effective than completely waiting to approve any edit -- especially since the "approvals" are really just to weed out vandalism, not to review the actual trustworthiness of the content. But with color coded "unreviewed" content, it will remind users to make sure they're even more cautious than they should be with regular Wikipedia content. Either way, requiring approval before edits go live seems like it would take away much of the spirit that made Wikipedia what it is today.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ether way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ether way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solving the wrong problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i don't think hiding content until its approved by an "authorized" editor is a solution, it would take so much time to verify and approve info which would kill Wiki.
but having articles or info that is still "unverified" in a different color IMHO is a very good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The editors are part of the problem
It's ironic that they hide behind the convenient anonymity of Wikipedia and decide from there what's right and what's wrong. In all my disputes (yes, I had them) with Wikipedia editors, I never discovered who I was actually debating with. (Remember the fake professor scandal.)
The beauty of the wiki concept is that it contains the power of community wisdom and knowledge. Yet being ultimately democratic, it reflects humanity and, occasionally, will contain foolishness and ignorance too.
Isn't that the price we pay (and part of the enjoyment) for living in a society where information flows freely?
It seems Wikipedia would have it otherwise. I'll read Encylopedia Britannica instead. At least you know who's writing the articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more fun
I think the original idea is still good. It is a bad idea to dilute it. What next? Ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more fun
Also, one of my friends, who became a regular, albeit anonymous editor (he used to make minor edits) after I showed him the power of the wiki concept, gave up in disgust because a crazy editor kept deleting his edits re. a cricket match in progress, even though his edits reflected scores of players who'd already got out (and thus obviously couldn't change any further). No real reason given either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need 2 Wikipedias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need 2 Wikipedias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
won't matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
peoples authority
The most annoying thing about Wikipedia is when people delete articles saying that the topic in question is not 'important enough'.
Why not require all deletions to be seconded by another (regular) editor. And all changes be approved by a second editor. But NOT a special editor just any regular one.
If its a collective knoweldge project, at least two people should agree about a change before it takes place. But this change should not be approved by 'special people' who for some reason have more authority than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or build it so all changes are tracked so that any version of an article can be retrieved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
citation needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Management Is The Answer ..
The Wikipedia culture has a big problem. They are not corporate re-engineers, and that is what is required here. One issue that makes me bleed from the eyes is that they 'immediately' put deletion notices on unfinished articles. All of the search engines pick that up in just a few minutes. Even if the deletion notice if removed, it sits in the engine cache system forever.
On top of that, they harass many people for silly reason while anyone can find similar content that hasn't met the criteria by which they are killing a new post.
All of this shows an incredible lack of vision, foresight, and structural imagination, which is greatly needed within the culture and management of such a web property.
My prediction is that Wikipedia will get it wrong for years to come until the appropriate imaginative people take control. It takes one type of genius to think up a great idea- it takes a completely different type of genius to build it, and keep it on the cutting edge.
Bill Wilkins
Melted Metal Web Radio
www.meltedmetal.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia = Joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia going the way of ODP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]