iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Newsletter Advertising
Visit Twellow.com
Text: Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size | Print Print Article | Share: Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Post to Twitter Post to Facebook
11 commentsFriday, January 30, 2009

Don't Get Too Attached To Editing Wikipedia

At Least Without Flagged Revision

It's about to get harder to edit a Wikipedia entry. That is unless those who oppose the concept can come up with a better idea.

Who among us hasn't encountered some false information on the site at one time or another. The goal here is to make Wikipedia, which is one of the most popular sites on the web, a more reliable place for obtaining accurate information. That can't be a bad thing from the average user's perspective.

However, out of users, 60% want to see the tightening of controls, while 40% still don't. After all, Wikipedia was built on a philosophy that allows anyone to add information.
Jimmy Wales
Times change though. Sites evolve. Wikipedia gets ranked high on Google for many, many searches. People looking for information want accuracy. A lot of us know that we can't always trust everything we read on Wikipedia. But how often does this phase the common searcher? Is this a concept that runs through little Johnny's mind when he's researching U.S. Presidents for his social studies paper?

It's not like users can't still submit edits. It should just be a little less chaotic this way, and ideally more useful in the long run for the majority of the site's users.

The process is called Flagged revisions, and has already been in place at the German-Language version of the site according to ITWorld. That seems to be the way it's going to go, but those opposed can share their ideas with management. If they come up with something better, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales will consider it.

About the author:
Chris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Twitter: @CCrum237

Banning Wikipedia for Student Papers

I remember when I used to teach English, the first couple of student's papers that came in with Wikipedia references. Now this was a couple of years ago, but I distinctly recall banning use of the online encyclopedia as a proper reference. There was something just not-quite-right about teaching a college class and not making sure the kids could do proper scholarly research. Maybe just my bias...

I don't think that it is

I don't think that it is your bias Matty, not many academics would consider Wikipedia an authoritative source.

I'm glad it's there though because it does fill a knowledge vacuum that exists in the world wide web

Publish A Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
SEARCH
Popular WPN Business Resources












Subscribe to WebProNews


Send me relevant info