If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- PLOS ONE Topic Pages: Peer-Reviewed Articles That Are Also Wikipedia Entries: What's Not To Like?
- Ajit Pai Again (Falsely) Claims States Are Powerless To Protect Broadband Consumers
- Wikipedia Makes The Case For Google & Facebook To Give Back To The Commons, Rather Than Just Take
- AT&T Ends Quest To Erode FTC Authority Over Broadband Providers
- Italian Court Rules The Wikimedia Foundation Is Just A Hosting Provider For Wikipedia's Volunteer-Written Articles
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ether way
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ether way
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Solving the wrong problem.
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | 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?
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Need 2 Wikipedias
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need 2 Wikipedias
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
won't matter
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
or build it so all changes are tracked so that any version of an article can be retrieved
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
citation needed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | 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
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia = Joke
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia going the way of ODP
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply