...within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on 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.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Actually, it is rather astonishing that it does not already work this way.
This is from the NYT.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In the past few days, one of the best libloggers called it quits: She explicitly said there won't be any more posts on that blog.
By itself, while it's noteworthy, I probably wouldn't post about it. The writer isn't going away, the archives aren't going away, and the circumstances may be unusual.…
Early on in its history, I wasn't particularly thrilled with Wikipedia as a project or reference source. To put it mildly, I viewed the very concept behind the project with a great deal of skepticism, some of which was voiced nine years ago when a medical Wikipedia was proposed. In particular, the…
My library is hosting a Ada Lovelace Day event tomorrow (ok, a little late...). Continuing in a tradition of having Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thons, we're hosting our own Wikipedia Women in Science Edit-a-thon!
I've been doing a fair bit of reading over the last couple of years about…
I had wanted to proceed to part 5 of my Medicine and Evolution series, but, frankly, I wasn't much in the mood for anything serious over the weekend, and, let's face it, that case of the blog blahs continued even into yesterday. Otherwise I would have done my blog buds Abel Pharmboy and Bora more…
I wonder if this is a direct result of Neil deGrasse Tyson editing his own article to change his declared religious views from "atheism" to "agnosticism".
More likely people altering the bio of some shlub who's famous for being famous :-P
I had assumed this was Henry Gee's fault.
Jimmy Wales argues that this is actually a way to make editing more open. Right now, controversial biographies are temporarily locked when the people are in the news, or have restricted access so that only people are registered and have been so for a few days can edit.
The new rules will allow anyone, registered or not, to make changes, but will require an "experienced" editor to approve the changes before they appear. Surprisingly, Wales didn't know how these experienced editors would be chosen, but said that it would be a very large group. I think he gave some guess at the size, but I've forgotten it.
The new rules will apply to the formerly restricted biographies, but Wales says that they haven't decided to apply them to all biographies (although he says they might).
Anyhow, I guess it depends on your point of view whether this is adding or reducing limits, but Wales seemed quite insistent that it was reducing limits, so I thought I should note his take on things.
I would not assume that "limits" is the proper measurement. I know that wikipedia's approach has been to operate with few limits, and wikipedia has been a success, and once can see how few limits = success in this case. But to assume that zero limits = the best possible wikipedia is not demonstrable and may be wrong.
Of course, if one believes in the domino theory, than this could be the beginning of the end.
I mentioned the Tyson thing only because I had only read about it yesterday afternoon, not because I really thought there was a direct correlation. I suppose I should have been clearer that it was just me being silly, assuming correlation implies causation.
I got that you were being silly!
This is the proposal on Wikipedia