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.
SEO Step Six of Ten: Social MediaSocial Media Marketing StrategiesResources for New Media and Social Media PRA Strategic Approach to Social Media MarketingSocial Media Marketing - the Latest BuzzWhat is Wrong with Social Media?Social Media Buzz Words List: Part IWhat is Social Media Traffic Worth?New Rules for Social Media Optimization Social Media and PR 911 
Comments
Crazy!
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.
The public is now being controlled on Wiki
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.
Waste of time
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.
Like to read proper English
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.
Will another que really help?
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.
Wikipedia looked down in education fields
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.
Flagged editions is a most have feature.
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.
loose with your spelling
Maybe a Wikipedia editor could catch writers who misspell "losing" as "loosing".
Could be a good idea.
It could well be a good idea but difficult to say. Lets keep it open source at least in the English speaking world.
Wiki
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.
Either Wikipedia is open, or it's not Wikipedia!
So, the German self-appointed "authorities" can't tolerate the non-authority of the masses once again, eh? I thought the whole point of the Wikipedia was to allow the masses to regulate themselves, and out-flank Britannica's stodgy, so-called "authorities".
Wikipedia seems to work elsewhere, world wide. If anything needs opening up, I'd think they'd open up the secret moderation and megalomaniacal deletionists to scrutiny, not the hard working contributors.
People contribute because it's easy, first fixing a comma here, a misspelling there. Then, when they see how easy and instant it is, they may eventually come back and contribute content that only they know and care about. Delay that initiation, and you loose the momentum of new energy. Oh well. Once in power ... power corrupts!
I suggest that the problem is the self-inflicted pain of the editors who burn out and can't take it anymore. They should retire, rather than try to control, delay, or stop the wonderful energy of new and different contributions. Pass the torch! Let new editors take over when the old editors get possessive. No one is supposed to "own" anything on the Wikipedia. This "edit approval" systems smacks of the "we were here first, we own it now" syndrome. You know, like the Europeans thinking that, as the new arrivals, they owned the Americas, and then come up with anti-immigration policies to close the door behind themselves. Hahahah.
Wikipedia is loosing it's remembrance of why it's there in the first place. It's NOT there for the ease of the editors. Editors are servants, not bosses. Editors are there to serve the contributors, not boss them and control them and censor them and pre-read and approve or deny them.
On Wikipedia, contributors WERE writing directly to each other and their audience, and now they want to make it like any other publishing industry where you have to write to please a middle-person first, not write directly to the intended audience.
How precious. I'm counting the days to an IPO and the impending risk of a Microsoft buy out. Hahahah!
Maybe it's time to revisit the credentialed http://en.citizendium.org/ after all "... We are creating the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base ..."
Amazon is all over eliminating editors ...
Yeah, I agree.
Good thing is that Jeff Bezos is all over the information age by letting freelance writers pen text directly to Kindle, like this (connects a PDF through Kindle to your bank account):
http://dtp.amazon.com/mn/signin
Tends to eliminate editors, as well as distributors, bookstores, paper, buncha other stuff.
And, ironically, your
And, ironically, your average German believes the American press is censored. :-)
editor approval
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.
WikiBS
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.
At least they are doing
At least they are doing something.
Post new comment