RSSWikipedia Changes Editing Rules
by Ed Oswald
Following two fairly high profile incidents regarding the anonymous editing of articles on the popular open-source online reference tool Wikipedia, the site said that it would make changes to how it operates to prevent future problems.
On November 29, an op-ed piece appeared in USA Today penned by John Seigenthaler, a former aide to Robert Kennedy. Seigenthaler said that for 132 days, the Wikipedia entry under his name falsely accused him of being a suspect in Kennedy's assassination.
So far, Curry has publicly refuted such claims, saying he was only trying to ensure the article correctly portrayed the history of podcasting.
The capability of anonymous editing has people like Seigenthaler upset, and he says that it opens the door for malicious or blatantly incorrect information being posted to the service without accountability.
"Wales, in a recent C-SPAN interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors corrects mistakes within minutes," he chided in the op-ed piece. "My experience refutes that."
Furthermore, Wikipedia articles like Seigenthaler's can go unnoticed for long periods of time as they may be less frequently linked to, and thus not often checked for errors by editors like popular articles.
In reponse to such complaints, anonymous authors will no longer be permitted to create new articles on Wikipedia. Instead, users will be required to create accounts in order to do so.
However, the process of changing articles will still be open to anonymous editing, which may disappoint some. While Curry's editing of the podcasting article was eventually traced back, in most cases edits may be practically impossible to trace without some form of registration.
19 Comments
well done for always being their. please, i need a comprehensive guideline on news editing. thanks.
Score: 0
There is nothing that is annonymous Editing at Wikipedia. All the Wikipedia articles are created by Internet Companies that pay some Wikipedia users millions of dollars to prevent unaffiliated users to edit these accounts to put the companies in bad light. The unaffiliated users who refuse to confirmed have their computers blocked so that they can't edit any mor. The computers of this writer was blocked on November 7, 2006 for calling Zedo an Adware who was warned by Wikipedia User DoGooderJohnnyD who sought the help of Adminstrator ZimZalabim who get another adminstrator Mongo to block his Computers. While now his computers have been unblocked by other adminstrators this writer is not allowed to edit the articles any more. He can only offer suggestions to edit the articles. Oviously the Wikipedia adminstrators and Jimbo Wales are making tens of millios of dollars under the table in edition to donations they seek and get from the companies.
Score: 0
I've expected this for years. Seriously, why in the world would anyone think that an anonymously edited information source would not be open to this type of problem? I'm surprised it took this long.
Score: 0
Wikipedia sucks. For some historical people, quoted sources are novels, not historical records. Doesnt that bother anyone? It bothers me...but then again, most of the "information" on the internet is fiction, hearsay testimony, or taken out of context.
Score: 0
Wikipedia sucks eh?
So, you don't mind paying for information even though it MIGHT be wrong, out of date, and you MIGHT be overcharged... in lieu of something which is constantly updated, is free and except for isolated cases, is always accurate.
Wikipedia is one site which will get my votes everytime someone talks about 'right to information'. The internet is like television. You can't believe everything you read anyway. That goes true for everything, even encyclopedias and magazines. Unless you get views from several sources, you can't be sure, and that's why there is a talk/discussion section to every article. You doubt the credibility of an article, go to the discussion page, and read up what people have to say. STILL not satisfied, add your two-bits to it, and someone nice enough will look into it.
But please, don't bash something that is obviously out there to do good for people...
Score: 0
Wikipedia is not that accurate if you ask me. It is good for casual reading, but not for serious academic works. At the place where I studied, Wikipedia are not accepted as valid reference source.
Score: 0
Whenever I see "Wikipedia sucks" or for that matter anything else sucks, I know that the comment has no basis in fact. You have laid no foundation for what you consider an argument to support what you say. Most individuals who say that something "sucks" rarely, if ever do.
Score: 0
Check the entry for "Vercingetorix"...one source is a novel. End of discussion?
Most people who unthinkingly trust a source are just being mentally lazy and uncritical. Go use a real encyclopedia that is peer reviewed and come back when you know something versus "know" something.
Score: 0
I thought that Wikipedia had a system of review for submissions? If not, they should at least have fact checking.
Wikipedia will hopefully become a major player in Encyclopedias, and as mentioned in a former BetaNews article, there are considerations that Wikipedia may go into print.
Citing sources and attributing credits to information is a part of anything journalistic, so Wikipedia must polish their already amazing, impressive concept to keep their own integrity in place.
I'm just waiting for Google to either purchase or create their own Wikipedia and then MSN to counter with marketing a revamped MSN Encarta (ala the Craig's List style database thing going on and Google Maps vs. MSN Maps)
Score: 0
I dont like this,
i will not register in protest of this new development.
Score: 0
God forbid anyone should be held accountable for spreading mis-information and libel...
Score: 0
Then don't use Wikipedia.
If you can't follow their rules, don't use their site ;)
Score: 0
And what exactly is the problem with requiring some form of registration to be able to edit articles?
Score: 0
I'd suspect there are several reasons. Here are some I can think of.
1. registering it's a hassle. it's not a big hassle, but it's a hassle. You have to wait for email to be sent, authenticate etc.
2. Some people like to be anonymous and not everyone who likes it have malicious intent.
Score: 0
The death of the wikipedia as we know it!
Score: 0
I think it's a decent trade-off though. If you want to edit, register.
A little hassle would go a long way to make wikipedia a more valid reference.
Score: 0
I agree completely. There has to be some accountability and this is a step in the right direction.
Score: 0
Surely if one is prepared to take the time (and hopefully, the effort) to update or edit a Wiki entry, then surely a once-off registration process is child's play? I simply cannot see the reason for not requiring registration - it's a no-brainer.
Score: 0
Absolutely nothing is wrong with requiring some kind of registration. This adds further credibility to an already informative information tool. Some won't like it as is already evident by the comments I've read so far.
Score: 0