Wikipedia Announces Tighter Editorial Control 407
Daedalus_ wrote to mention a Reuters article reporting from Wikimania. "Wikipedia, the Web encyclopaedia written and edited by Internet users from all over the world, plans to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent vandalism of its content, founder Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying Friday." (Update: 08/06 23:45 GMT by J : But see his response here!) Meanwhile, kyelewis writes "WikiMania, the First International WikiMedia Conference is open in Germany, but if you couldn't gather the money or the courage to fly over, you can listen online in Ogg Vorbis format, or if you miss the talks, you can download them later. The WikiMania Broadcast page has more information, and the WikiMania Programme is also available, so jump in and learn more about the mysterious technology that is the wiki."
Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good Idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I wonder what it will mean for people like me who post edits to maybe 4 or 5 articles a year, when we find an error?
I think the biggest problem is edits to 'contraversial' posts, like "Intelegent Design" or "Joseph McCarthy".
Of course the "real" trolls will simply poison the well by inserting subtle errors.
The Slashdotter's dilemma (Score:2, Insightful)
We want to be protected from malicious actions of both others and ourselves!
Profit!
Sounds good to me (Score:2, Insightful)
I also wish they'd have better/clearer rules for what to do when some kind of cartel seizes a page and consistently ties to impose an editorial bias on it. Groups like the one at littlegreenfootballs will occasionally descend on a page and attempt to twist its content by claiming anything that doesn't bolster their close-minded worldview is "biased" and must be "fixed". Change one of these pages and it will be immediately rv'd to what the cartel wants. What do you do in such a case? Well, maybe the people who hang out on wikipedia all the time know, but someone just passing through has no idea.
Some suggestions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe for the "frozen" entries, updates should be allowed to be submitted, but then there'd be a voting, where the update would only be applied if enough people accepted it.
Maybe they could even impliment a reputation system, where the votes of people with higher reputations count more, and/or where people with higher reputations can make changes without needing a vote...
No Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I prefer the former solution. Good luck, Wikipedia!
About time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:5, Insightful)
I like Wikipedia because I can look up almost anything and find an entry. They're trying to curb the problem of malicious users before it gets out of hand, which is good, IMO.
From their own definition... (Score:3, Insightful)
A wiki is a web application that allows users to add content, as on an Internet forum, but also allows anyone to edit the content.
So this definitely goes against the spirit of a Wiki. That said, I think a little editorial control is probably justified, especially with mature/stable articles, which have reached a high level of quality and experience only infrequent updates.
Rather than having such articles targeted by vandals, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have an occasional valid update go through an editorial vote. Wikipedia already does this currently with "Controversial" articles which are likely to experience Edit-wars.
Extending the control a little probably would do Wikipedia good. The emphasis there being on "little", since overextending editorial content is likely to cause the same problems that regular encyclopedias do - biased content, inaccuracies due to limited knowledge of editors, outdated content, etc.
What is the best way to implement this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea how they plan on implementing this, but if it was up to me, I'd have a "stable" and "draft" version of each high-profile page. Anyone should be able to edit the draft. Periodically, the draft version could replace the stable version (perhaps a voting system could be in place, not unlike the kuro5hin submission queue).
The importance of a page (to decide if a locked "stable" page is necessary) could be determined automatically either by number of hits, or computing the pagerank of each page given the link graph of the whole wiki.
Re:Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:5, Insightful)
> That's my main worry, what I liked was the kind of controlled chaos of the idea
Yeah, I like that too. Unfortunately, on the internet, once your site reaches a high enough profile every dickhead in the universe feels obligated to do whatever they can to screw it up.
Like Slashdot, for example.
Re:Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:2, Insightful)
While wiki can be dynamic and fluid, it was never meant to be a bulletin board or a chat room. With some highly contentious topics you end up with an off-topic name-calling match between 2 authors (if you read the revisions), and that's not in anyone's best interest.
We're not talking about imposing a complete editing and peer-reviewing process like a print encyclopedia (which is also good, since dissenting opinions tend to not get preserved once they cross an editor's desk). We're talking about making it more dificult to deface, and more difficult to be off-topic.
No, but asshats have (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is one of the most awesome things ever to come out of the depths of the internet. It provides up to date, accurate content from a variety of different sources and view points that is subject to the collective scrutiny of the community that maintains it.
It's something like democracy in that everyone has an active hand in it which inspires people to do their best because the wikipedia is as much theirs as anyone else's.
Of course there are always going to be asshats, internet trolls, and other fuckwads who spoil a good thing be being dicks. As with any society, organization, or project that is open and free in nature, there exists the possibility that someone can easily ruin it for everyone.
When this happens the common reaction is to take away some of that freedom in order to maintain what has been created. This is very similar to the US Patriot Act which is theoretically designed to protect the United States be limiting individual freedoms for the greater good. Whether you agree with the approach or not is moot.
Perhaps the best way to handle something so democratic as wikipedia is to have changed content be reviewed by several people who can reject or approve the changes before they go through. Another system akin to the /. moderation system would to give editors who do a good job at wikipedia more control over what they can change and how much they can change it. This means that the best editors will be able to quickly change content if necessary and provide new entries as necessary while preventing some jerk with too much time on his/her hands from doing a lot of damage.
delay mechanism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the best way to implement this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You HAVE to have a way of getting new data into Wikipedia pages. Even long-ago historical events need to be updated when new evidence or new analysis brings new facts to light. History is never cemented. And Wikipedia has proven remarkably capable of keeping up-to-date with new events.
But yes, Wikipedia editing is sometimes like making sausage. No matter how good it tastes in the end, the intermediate steps aren't always good looking. You need to simultaneously hide this sausage-making from the casual user (by making the "stable" page be the default one to appear), while also making it not too difficult for people to contribute to the sausage-making process (by making the "draft" page only a single click away).
Re:Some suggestions... (Score:3, Insightful)
So in order to vandalize, the changes would have to survive a 'burn in' period where those people watching the article have a chance to cancel it before everybody sees it on the main page. This takes away the primary motivation for vandalism since nobody sees the change except to revert it. Currently people make rapid changes and keep hacking the articles day after day because they think somebody sees it, even for the several minutes or less before it is reverted. This incentive would be gone with a time-delayed scheme.
Re:Wondering the same... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:From their own definition... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Good Idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, not exactly "no interest". Someone had to be interested enough to create the article, yes?
Do you mean "No interest to me, and to other right-thinking people like me?" Do you mean "No interest to the overwhelming majority of the reader base?"
Yeah, generally, i vote "delete" in the inevitable "Vote for Deletion" calls on vanity pages and the like. But it bugs me that minority opinions are getting quashed because they aren't widely held. There's a fine line between "maintaining quality for the sake of credibility" and "maintaining conformity for the sake of the groupthink." Sometimes the voices of the crackpot are useful and, even occaisionally, right [wikipedia.org].
Re:Wondering the same... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think wikipedia works well, you just have the wrong idea of it. It is by no means a source I'd trust for anything important. It is, however, a source I'd use to get a vague possible idea of a topic, and use as a starting point to find reliable information from authoritative sources.
I'd say that was a mistake (Score:3, Insightful)
(Yes, I know this is ironic in context.)
Re:That still doesn't change some things. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that article [wikipedia.org] told me everything I needed to know, except where to get one.
Re:Wondering the same... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you are doing research on a two-seater variant of the f-16 foghter aircraft, and the "paper encyclopedia" puts the range at 2400km, and wikipedia puts the range at 2550km, who would you trust?
Now, if you came to the knowledge that the article on the trainer variant in question was edited by Captain John Miller, USAF, at the Point Ueneme Air Force base, the only base in the United States using this particular variant, and that he was the man in charge of all pilot training, who would you believe then, the "paper encyclopedia" printed in Taiwan in 2003, or Wikipedia?
Now, let's say that John Miller posted as JonM at 3 am, you might not know that he's the USAF trainer, but you might ask him how he knows, and he might tell you to call him at the base during his office hours. Then you might know. Try calling the Encyclopedia.
Assuming that information is correct is always asking for trouble, regardless of where the infomration comes from. What wikipedia allows you to do is more easily contact the authors to validate or invalidate, as the case may be, the factual nature of the information.
You don't understand how wikipedia works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wondering the same... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is, of course, the point of an encyclopedia.
Re:Isn't that an oxymoron? (Score:3, Insightful)
(In other words, I think that just about any topic can and will be slanted to produce a political bias, and that humans will be arguing about politics until the end of time, or until the arguing brings an end to humans. . . whichever comes first)
Re:I'd say that was a mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, but asshats have (Score:3, Insightful)
And what's to stop groups like "Focus on the Family" from staging an Astroturf campaign to slant certain articles their way.
For example, FoF routinely sends out form-emails to people on their email list (members, freinds of members, etc.) - and instructs the members to email them back to Newspaper editorial pages nationwide. One result of this type of situation was that the FCC was innundated with tens of millions of emails after the Janet Jackson Wardrobe Malfunction, when in fact, the opinion of this onslaught of email represented fewer than 1% of the US population - it was magnified by FoF's email campaign.
Similar groups on either side of the political fence could mount an astroturf "attack" on Wikipedia. Some of these groups are astoundingly well-funded. The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, The Federalist Society, even MoveOn.org. The newsmedia has already been polarized by such groups, through pressure tactics, and through stacking corporate boardrooms with members of these groups, dictating opinion down through the ranks of these newsmedia organizations.
I don't know if there's a good way to combat these kinds of things. But the same situation you see on FoxNews, CNN, Washington Times, or Wall Street Journal - eventually these groups are going to catch on to the fact that Wikipedia is an important source of information that needs to be "controlled" by them. If they can't do it with money, they'll do it with numbers. And if the founders maintain editorial control anyway, they'll attempt to destroy it's credibility by using their newsmedia outlets to claim that Wikipedia is biased.
Re:Then base stable on a time period (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a bad idea, but maybe it could be based on page views instead of time. If a draft has been read a certain number of times without a modification, it could be moved to stable. Four hours may be too short in the early morning, or too long for current events.
Either way, there's a significant danger of a troll getting their edit into the stable version, then editing the draft frequently enough to prevent it from stablizing, thus preventing other users from fixing the edit. For that reason, I prefer a voting process. To make it resilient against targetted trolling, perhaps the articles each user can vote on should be selected at random, much like metamoderation here on slashdot.
Re:Idealism meets reality (Score:3, Insightful)
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a repository of tremendously correct facts. That's not the purpose of a regular encyclopedia, either. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a competent general introduction to a wide variety of topics, and pointers to further information. At this Wikipedia excels.
Many people find Wikipedia a useful resource, so the argument that it is inherently useless is pointless. To vandalise that resource, just to prove your point, is despicable.
The value of Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia provides overviews of things.
The problem is that when I want information about, say, USB 2.0, the Web *does* provide just about everything I might want (an improvement over writing letters to people requesting documents, for certain). However, I may have no idea what to request.
A Wikipedia article gives me a brief overview that is useful to a human, and provides me with enough information that I know where to go for further, detailed information.
It might take a long time to obtain this information normally, but Wikipedia allows me to get ahold of it almost instantly.
And one other point -- while I agree that to a security theorist, Wikipedia is horribly insecure, and can suffer many attacks, it is also inarguably *not* falling apart. So, clearly there are some important factors that we have not taken into consideration, like the fact that people may just like Wikipedia a lot.
I've mused many a time on whether a Wiki might be a good way to bootstrap an encyclopedia, but not the best once there is valuable information finished and present that one must simply keep from being vandalized. So an unmodified wiki approach might make sense for the early days of Wikipedia, but some sort of trust system might make more sense later on.
Also, for people who disagree with this policy change, remember that you can always "fork" Wikipedia.
If we can live with a bit more time to update things, there might be an "unstable Wikipedia" and a "stable Wikipedia", where editors have approved changes and dropped them into the stable release. [shrug] lots of possibilities. All I know is that Wikipedia is a great sign of the same fundamental value that drives open source -- that it is so phenomenally inexpensive to produce something that can then provide good for so many people that traditional market economics may not do a good job of serving us any more in an information age.
Re:Wondering the same... (Score:2, Insightful)
Its you, right? You vandal!
Re:Wondering the same... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! This holds true for normal encyclopedias as well though. You should never use tertiary sources for any sort of good research.