...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
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…
This is an awesome coincidence. The availablity of all those quantifiable metrics extracted by Google Books has fueled the establishment of a Science Hall of Fame, which lists scientists by an objective measure of their fame, the frequency with which they are cited in books. It was announced in…
In case you didn't know, reality is science fiction.
If you doubt me, read the news. Read, for example, this recent article in the New York Times about Carnegie Mellon's "Read the Web" program, in which a computer system called NELL (Never Ending Language Learner) is systematically reading the…
As everybody's talking about, the snazzy new version of ResearchBlogging.org launched on Tuesday. Powered by Seed Media Group Technology, ResearchBlogging now has a host of new features, including multi-language capability, subject-specific RSS feeds, and profiles of registered users.…
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