Wikipedia limits edits on biographies of living
By Stuart Turton
Posted on 25 Aug 2009 at 10:52
Wikipedia will require edits made about a living person to be signed off by an experienced editor as part of its "flagged revisions" feature.
Flagged revisions mean that changes made in the biographies of living people cannot go live until they've been reviewed by one of Wikipedia's senior editors - an acknowledgement by the site that it needs to become more dependable.
"We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks," Michael Snow, chairman of the Wikimedia board tells The New York Times. "There was a time probably when the community was more forgiving of things that were inaccurate or fudged in some fashion — whether simply misunderstood or an author had some axe to grind. There is less tolerance for that sort of problem now."
We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks
The system is already in place on the German version of the site, and will be rolled out to the English-language Wikipedia in the next few weeks. It's sure to prove controversial among those who consider Wikipedia's status as "the free encyclopaedia anyone can edit" to be sacred.
The move comes as Wikipedia continues its struggle to balance openness and accuracy. High-profile pages, including those of political leaders, are often protected, or semi-protected meaning edits can only be made by approved contributors.
More controversially, back in June The New York Times revealed it had worked with Wikipedia to suppress articles about the kidnapping of reporter David Rohde in Afghanistan. While the action may have saved his life, it still dismayed those who consider Wikipedia the people's encyclopaedia.
From around the web
Wikipedia's credibility
hi,
I just stumbled upon quite an old YouTube video portraying - in rather hilarious way - the above mentioned credibility problems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY
By stasi47 on 25 Aug 2009 ![]()
Anyone can edit
It's all very well having a "free encyclopaedia anyone can edit" or a "people's encyclopaedia" but there's no point to it at all if the information in it is unreliable. Wikipedia has every right to make this change to protect its reputation - it seems acceptable to me that unproven editors should have their contributions checked before they are published as "fact".
By halsteadk on 25 Aug 2009 ![]()
The trouble with people
People are not accurate and reliable. When everyone can edit something, everyone will. So what you end up with is an interesting mix of bias, selective acknowlegement of facts, discrimination and outright grudges and mud slinging.
This is the reason peer-reviewed journals are used in science.
By phantombudgie on 25 Aug 2009 ![]()
advertisement
- Chrome's shine getting lost in translation
- BytePac: the cardboard hard disk enclosure
- How tech loosens our grip on reality
- Hokum watch: Safer Internet Day
- Why I'm deleting Adobe from my PC
- Prepare to be patronised: it's Safer Internet Day
- Dear Sony, Samsung and every other tech company in the world: stop trying to be Apple
- Will Apple's Final Cut Pro X update placate the pros?
- Smartr Contacts for iPhone review
- Switching to Office 365's Outlook Web App
- Why virtualisation hasn't slowed the growth of data
- How to make Google AdWords work for your business
- The curse of sloppily written software
- Paying for your crimes with Bitcoin
- Behind the scenes: tech support for Formula 1
- The security risk of fat fingers
- Why Windows Phone 7 isn't quite ready for business
- When will Microsoft stop fiddling with Windows 8?
- Flash down the pan?
- Metro Style apps vs desktop applications
advertisement
