[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    Re: [WikiEN-l] Most read US newspaper blasts Wikipedia
From:       Stan Shebs <shebs () apple ! com>
Date:       2005-11-30 14:56:30
Message-ID: 438DBD9E.80903 () apple ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Brian wrote:

> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm 
>
>
> Talk amongst yourselves.

Shrug, one more person discovers WP.

Although most days I'm irritated by anons in one way or another,
requiring login creation doesn't change the equation that much;
imagine everybody just creating logins named the same as each IP
they use, and adding "-1", "-2", "-3" for reuses of an IP number.
At most it would help in tracking groups of related changes.

The problem of unsourced libels is not unique to us, we share that
with the blogosphere. We do have the mechanisms to fix it, but not
enough knowledgeable people doing the watching - if I had been
watching this guy's page, I might have let the addition go through,
because it sounds plausible, includes a caveat that the claim might
have been unfounded, and since 99% of additions don't include a
source, it's not unusual that way either.

We could just get a lot more hardnosed about reverting suspect
changes; since our last discussion about all this, I've personally
taken a tougher line about instantly reverting poor changes, and
so far no one seems to have protested my high-handedness. I wonder
how it would go if I summarily reverted all unsourced edits??

Stan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]