Wikipedia to become more stringent on editing after false death reports

[terry78]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090126/tc_afp/usitinternetwikipedia


Uh-oh.

 

[Eggyman]

Online encyclopedia Wikipedia may tighten editing rules (AFP)

Posted on Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:47PM EST

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Wikipedia is considering tightening its rules on who can edit the online encyclopedia after vandals last week changed the entries of two US senators to erroneously report that they had died.

Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, proposed the change, which is being called "Flagged Revisions," after the vandalism of the entries on Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd.

The proposal, which was approved 60-40 by participants in an online poll, would not allow first-time or anonymous users to make instant edits but would require that they be approved first by trusted users.

"This nonsense would have been 100 percent prevented by Flagged Revisions," Wales wrote on the Wikipedia user forum page.

The proposal has sparked a heated debate on the forum. Wikipedia prides itself on allowing anyone with an Internet connection to contribute or edit content.

Wales expressed concern that the new procedure could delay the publication of some items but said he believed it was necessary.

He gave opponents two weeks to come up with another proposal.

"Those who are in the minority who are opposed to this are invited to make an alternative proposal within the next seven days, to be voted upon for the next 14 days after that," Wales said.

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the Internet and attracts roughly six million visitors a day.

Kennedy, who is suffering from brain cancer, collapsed at a luncheon last week after the inauguration of Barack Obama as US president and was briefly hospitalized.

His Wikipedia entry was changed shortly afterwards to say that he had died but was corrected within minutes.

When oh when will you learn, Terry?

 

[terry78]

I don't follow the rules, I make them, ya heard?

 

[Eggyman]

I heard. Make some better rules.

 

[bullets]

there are some amazing wikipedia editors out there , it' a shame they have to deal with this b.s.

 

[RootBeerMaster]

I sort of knew something like this was coming of all the false facts I have ran into on Wikipedia.

I though it was bad enough when Wikipeida was claiming that supergirl appeared in smallville season 3 just the girl called her self Kara. Because some dumb kid put that with out knowing facts.

But saying some one died is takeing that this Crap way to far, I am sort of Supprised Wikipeida is going to start doing something about it, since they never did before.

 

[Manic]

So... they're making it so that anyone who wants to edit Wikipedia needs another user to vouch for them?

That could work. It'd prevent those Edit Wars that sometimes happen when two people go back and forth on a single entry, or those wacky non-sequitur comments (like that time the page on Donna Troy said "I love cats" on the bottom).

 

[Figs]

Although this could lead to alot of headaches for the people who run/own the site but couldn't they not let just anyone have the freedom to edit things? Why don't they have people send them requests and changes and then the owners/runners of the website can verify it first before they themselves make the change?

I know this could be a major problem since they would be flooded with emails everyday but it's just an idea.

 

[Manic]

Although this could lead to alot of headaches for the people who run/own the site but couldn't they not let just anyone have the freedom to edit things? Why don't they have people send them requests and changes and then the owners/runners of the website can verify it first before they themselves make the change?

I know this could be a major problem since they would be flooded with emails everyday but it's just an idea.

That would be too inefficient. It would either lead to Wikipedia edits taking weeks to go through, or "Yes To All" responses that wouldn't solve anything.

This new plan removes the power to edit anonymously, though.

 

[Nirvana]

I'm glad to read this.

 

[Figs]

That would be too inefficient. It would either lead to Wikipedia edits taking weeks to go through, or "Yes To All" responses that wouldn't solve anything.

This new plan removes the power to edit anonymously, though.

Well like I said, they would verify the info first instead of using the "Yes to all" method.

If there removing the power to edit anonymously, that should actually work out real well then.

 

[Manic]

Well like I said, they would verify the info first instead of using the "Yes to all" method.

But if the people who own and run Wikipedia needed to verify all entries, that would take way too long. Like I said, we're talking weeks. Possibly months. There's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia.

Their new plan is so much better.