New Wikipedia Editing System Being Weighed

Wikipedia is defined by its community contribution model, and so far, the approach has worked quite well. The German version of Wikipedia has been experimenting with an edit approval system, though, and it seems the system may be ready to spread.

Under the stricter rules, anyone and everyone can still edit articles. The main difference is that new changes are kept out of public sight until a designated checker can look at and okay them.

Noam Cohen writes, "The Germans who are implementing the idea stress that the checkers are not a heavy hand, but are doing the most cursory examination to see that no curse words or obvious non sequiturs have been added. While some revisions can wait a day, usually they only take minutes, as checkers . . . spend hours going through lists of changes to approve."

So it seems administrators have struck a balance between speed and accuracy that most Wikipedia fans might be able to live with. As such, the flagged revisions system is being discussed at Wikimania 2008, with the probable next step being tests or outright implementations in places other than Germany.

We’ll see what happens, although since this was last discussed about a year ago, it wouldn’t be wise to expect anything too soon.

There are 14 Comments. Add Yours.

iPod Repair guy
July 18, 2008 at 1:00 pm

At least they are doing something.
Dale
July 18, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Still, you have to verify the info thru an accredited source. Ya know, someone who gets paid to "fact check". So, if Wiki is doing that now, are the "checkers" paid? Free is a four letter word.
Joe
July 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm

After the John Seigenthaler wiki character assassination, I’m all for editors.
http://www.jjraymond.com/oddsandends/2005/wikipedia.html

I know it is a dangerous thing to give up freedom but people poop on a unregulated world. Wish it were different.
Richard Henricks
July 20, 2008 at 6:43 am

And, ironically, your average German believes the American press is censored.
Serge Verwest
July 20, 2008 at 8:24 am

It is a good thing computers didn’t excist in the 1930′ies. If not what could the Germans do with it. Make registration go faster and faster and contole more. So let Wiki under public controle. Chairing information is the base for Freedom. Controle information is a base for dictators.
The mathematician
July 20, 2008 at 11:36 am

It could well be a good idea but difficult to say. Lets keep it open source at least in the English speaking world.
Guest
July 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Maybe a Wikipedia editor could catch writers who misspell "losing" as "loosing".
Guest
July 21, 2008 at 5:37 am

Flagged editions is a needed and very useful addition for antivandalism and so, improve the Wikipedia quality and confidence.

Today, the article revision history only shows editions (what somebody do), i.e. minor and mayor editions, translations, revertions, etc. But what happens when I review a recent change to an article and I find that it is not a vandalism? Today, there is not a sign of this activity in the article revision history, I can’t put a mark indicating that I just reviewed the article, so many people will review the same article again and again, many times, redundantly, and we will never be sure if the article has vandalisms. One year later somebody will review again the same article for vandalism and if he or she will find that it is clean, the article wont have any sign indicating this status.

With flagged editions (I call it “review mark”) the article revision history will show not only what I physically do with the article (editions), but what I review, so if the next reviewer trust me, he or she doesn’t need to review it again.

The “review mark” adds to the article revision history a needed new kind of information that we actually doesn’t have, and it is a very effective addition to combat vandalism and improve Wikipedia quality.
sterlingteaches
July 21, 2008 at 10:15 am

I like the idea of someone verifying pages in wikipedia. Don ‘t get me wrong I am pro community sensoring, but as a teacher I hear my students complain that none of their other classes allow them to use wikipedia as a source of information. Their teacher’s attribute it to the high amount of innacurate information. I think this would help soften many teachers views of wikipedia, and see it more as an aid than an annoyance.
Eric R.
July 21, 2008 at 12:43 pm

As it stands, there is already a que for article subjects waiting for authors, and they aren’t being seen to either. What happens when there is a list of corrections that need to be attended to and aren’t?

Right now, if you go to edit the Space Shuttle page to read that every year it lands on Manhatten island to take part in the Macy’s Day parade, that change won’t live for 60 seconds. That’s because Wikipedia editors are already vigilant about vandalism.
Laura Gullett
July 21, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Actually I prefer to read proper English with good flowing sentences, grammar structure, and spelling. I have to admit when I opt to fix a sentence, or spelling, in Wikipedia that needs correcting, it feels really cool to be a part of the community. I always have faith first that the information is accurate, but realize there are times when it probably isn’t. I love learning and reading so always hope for more accuracy than not though.
Guest
July 28, 2008 at 7:06 am

This sounds like a waste of time – the checking that can be done with a cursory glance is only going to weed out a little of the obvious self-promotion and more obvious vandalism. It will do nothing to prevent subtle vandalism, or even worse the subtle mistakes that make it so looked down upon by academia. What is needed is verification of the grand ideas, not of the spelling.
Donald
July 29, 2008 at 10:12 pm

So, the whole base of wikipedia may be coming to an end.

Once this sort of control comes in, it’s only a matter of time before things slowly but surely become more exclusive.

Probably end up like DMOZ . Good or bad, you judge.
Joao
August 20, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Well, let’s tell those guys as moderators… I think the core question is who will moderate the moderators? It’s an old phrase "Who will guard the guards"?
It’s a waste of time; censorship already exists.