Wikipedia To Require Editing Approval

The NY Times reports on an epochal move by Wikipedia — within weeks, the formerly freewheeling encyclopedia will begin requiring editor approval for all edits to articles about living people. "The new feature, called 'flagged revisions,' will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia's servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version. ... The new editing procedures... have been applied to the entire German-language version of Wikipedia during the last year... Although Wikipedia has prevented anonymous users from creating new articles for several years now, the new flagging system crosses a psychological Rubicon. It will divide Wikipedia's contributors into two classes — experienced, trusted editors, and everyone else — altering Wikipedia's implicit notion that everyone has an equal right to edit entries."

Don't you mean...

[TFer_Atvar]

...make a fork of it?

Re:The truth? Wikipedia is dying

[exley]

Thanks Netcraft!

Quick!

[gardyloo]

Everyone edit all the biographies to say that people died in 1997. Then we can say whatever we want!

Don't worry, /. still has no editing standards

[Junior J. Junior III]

Wikipedia may be working their way into having stringent editorial standards, but slashdot will always remain free and unencumbered by such things.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

The whole [citation needed] thing was a reaction to criticism by main-stream press and political figures who can't understand that facts are NOT handed down from 'on high' and that sometimes, the mob can be right if they leave the knowledge to the experts in the field that swoop down and make critical edits to a fleshed out piece, transforming an OK article into a good one.

[citation needed]

Re:Well...

[wxjones]

What Wikipedia needs is a moderation system. This will ensure that only the best informed, most intelligent, and highest quality material makes it through. Just like Slashdot. Oh wait.

Re:not really a Rubicon

[lennier]

"and will inevitably lead to its horrific demise, followed by the dark ages of technology"

The goose-stepping hordes, saluting and chanting "NPOV! NPOV! Heil Jimbo!" beneath the burning jigsaw-world emblem.

The border checks: "Citation required, wikizen!"

The secret bunkers: "Your anonymous friends in 4chan are walking into a trap. Now witness the processing power of this FULLY ARMED AND OPERATIONAL datacenter!"

The inevitable non-aggression pact with Scientology, followed by the antimatter bombing of the Vatican and the invasion of Russia.

It's all in Nostradamus, folks!

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Because Mussolini never said anything which wasn't in his autobiography and Hitler certainly never said anything which wasn't contained in Mein Kampf. You've exhaustively covered everything that the only two dictators who ever lived on this planet ever said or wrote during their entire lives, thus proving the original poster completely wrong. You sure showed him.

Wait, what?

[commodoresloat]

Indeed, and in fact, this is a step forward: currently the only method at the moment is to protect articles, locking anonymous and new editors out completely. With this system, they'll now be allowed to edit again.

And in other news, our glorious leader has raised the chocolate ration to 25 grams, from the already generous 30 grams of last month.

Did I miss a slashdot article? Steve Jobs owns Wikipedia now?

Re:Put a fork in it...

[commodoresloat]

About 4 or 5 years ago I was teaching a class and demonstrating Wikipedia was part of the class. There was a projector in the room and this was all on a large screen in front of everyone. I showed the Bush page and several others, then for some reason went back to the Bush page. In the 5 minutes we were looking at it someone had replaced the entire page with the word "WANKER". The students went into hysterics.

I have no doubts that every student in that class since understood why professors told them that they shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source.

Re:"Everyone can edit", but "no one can contribute

[refactored]

<i>Do you never go anywhere without the Internet?</i>

As often as possible.

However the set of places that don't have my desk is even larger.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you've noticed that the legal professional has this slander and liable thing.

Words you never read in the Biable.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia. The goal is to try to insert misinformation as well as pushing a point of view that is randomly assigned at signup, while preventing any contrary information from being entered by others. Players with similar misinformation will generally form guilds in order to aid one another. Wikipedia players gain more authority as they progress, with "Administrator" and "Double-O Licensed" rankings granting them access to game processes not available to others. While the rules for winning the game are a tightly-kept secret. Wikipedia tends to have terminally boring entries on useless topics like the lives of 17th century rabbis, characteristics of the 57th termite chromosome, and Hollywood films including one or more of the Sesame Street Muppets - in other words, content with no real relevance to anything. It also functions limitedly as a medical journal and criminal resource for retards. A common misconception is that "Wikipedia is never finished." Remember that whenever you come by a Wikipedia article that is boring or filled with poor English skills, that such a refined state of quality did not happen on its own. Each article was forged from the blood of thousands of angsty teenagers edit warring over shit nobody cares about. The only reason anyone ever visits the site is because it's free. Information on Wikipedia topics can generally be found through Google and other forms of reference material, like books. TOW likes to think of themselves as the 21st century's answer to the Library of Alexandria, but, in reality, they fall somewhere closer to the collective scribblings on a truck stop bathroom wall. Indeed, this holds to the standard modus operandi of Wikipedia , that believes presenting obvious fact (e.g. "Wikipedia is never finished") as philosophy garners respect from people who don't fucking care. How the Game Typically Progresses 1. You make edits to articles 2. Your edits get reverted by aspie fucktards 3. You revert them back and they in turn revert again 4. You bicker on the talk page of the article 5. You whine about the aspies on the administrator noticeboards accusing them of being uncivil, they in turn accuse you of assuming bad faith 6. You open a Request for Comment on their behavior 7. You take them to arbitration 8. ??? 9. Jimbo profits Gaining Experience Points * 1 vandal reversion = 1 exp (a vandal is defined as an editor with a different point of view than yours) * 1 legitimate edit to a page = 2 exp * 1 article created (assuming it stays) = 20 exp * 1 Good Article = 100 exp * 1 Featured Article = 200 exp * 1 report to AIV or UAA = 5 exp * 1 page deleted via AfD = 20 exp * 1 page deleted via PROD or CSD = 10exp * 1 support for an Rfa = 20 exp * 1 article with POV or misinformation inserted into = 100 exp * 1 user blocked as a result of drama created = 50 exp Levels Possible * Rollback - 10,000 exp * Administrator - 100,000 exp * Bureaucrat - 500,000 exp * Checkuser or Oversight - Possible after 500,000 exp [plagurgized from http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ [encycloped...matica.com] (NSFW)]

Re:How about you show us this entry?

[For a Free Internet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York [wikipedia.org]

"Everything bad about New York is entirely the fault of the FUCKING BRITISH!"

Wow, that's not quite NPOV.