« Joseph Wilson's "Who's Who In America" Entry | Main | A Lesson to be Learned From the Plame Case »

Wikipedia Looks To Eject Trolls

For a user edited site, Wikipedia is taking "its content" more seriously these days.

BERLIN (Reuters) - Wikipedia, the Web encyclopedia written and edited by Internet users from all over the world, plans to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent vandalism of its content, founder Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying Friday.

In an interview with German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Wales, who launched Wikipedia with partner Larry Sanger in 2001, said it needed to find a balance between protecting information from abuse and providing open access to improve entries.

"There may soon be so-called stable contents. In this case, we'd freeze the pages whose quality is undisputed," he said.

In other words portions of it would become an online encyclopedia...

Update: Apparently the story is bogus, the status quo prevails in Wikipedia-land...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wikipedia Looks To Eject Trolls:

» BizzyBlog.com linked with This Weekend’s Unanswered Questions (080605)

» Rauru Blog linked with Wikipedia vs Vandalism

Comments (8)

Hmmmm."pages whose... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

"pages whose quality is undisputed"

Good luck. Right now almost the entirety of WikiPedia is unmitigated garbage not worth printing out and wiping my ass with.

Perhaps after several years of review and editing it will then be worth printing out and wiping my ass with.

But I'm not going to keep my buttocks clenched until then.

I like Wikipedia. Is the E... (Below threshold)
a4g:

I like Wikipedia. Is the Encyclopedia Brittanica supposed to be faultless-- or even moderately unbiased? The very fact that you have to read Wikipedia with a grain of skepticism is a HUGE plus-- it doesn't get the "pass" that a leather-bound volume might, and keeps your intellectual BS detector set to "high"-- a good position for the meter to get stuck.

You want perfect information-- better ask God.

As long as we humans are involved, the level of s**t is going to be pretty high.

As long as you're not searching for "George W Bush", and instead for something like "Greek Entablature", its a fairly respectable, exceedingly FREE, resource.

I like the Democratisation of the Press and the Encyclopedia.

If the contents were... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


If the contents were indisputable... why would you need to freeze them?

It's pretty good for keeping semi-geezers like me up to date on the latest slang, otherwise I go elsewhere.

Wikipedia is great as long ... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Wikipedia is great as long as you're not looking for anything controversial. I've actually been using it for reference in my History of US Wars class. It was great for getting information on Nathanael Greene and John Paul Jones. Now, if I was looking up Operation Enduring Freedom, I'd skip it completely.

If Wikipedia wants static pages of indisputable facts, that's fine, but, in addition, it should still keep a companion, dynamic page anyone can edit for that topic.

I have found Wikipedia accu... (Below threshold)

I have found Wikipedia accurate and helpful on many occasions. I think it is a dandy idea to try and filter out the more trashy stuff. The only reason I use an encyclopedia anyway is to get a braod overview of a subject, and considering most subjects will have several points of view, Wik simply provides one of them.

As someone already mentioned, all encyclopedias have some slant and bias. Authority on an issue is hard to come by.

The real problem surfaces s... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

The real problem surfaces some anus with the moonbattitude copies and pastes something from wikipedia during an exchange with me about something like the Patriot Act.

They want to maintain some sort of bullshit stance using wiki-style 'facts' to backup their claim in a public forum, all the while not concerned with the idea of when they use their first amendment rights to express 'their opinions' and they also claim to be afraid of so fervently that their front door gets kicked-in at any moment.

Just look up wiki in wikipedia - it notes...

... allows anyone to edit the content

I love wikipedia, but beware of it's capacity.

Wikipedia's content reliabi... (Below threshold)
John:

Wikipedia's content reliability jumped the shark since the '04 election and politically motived trolls got a chance to control the 'truth'.

is annoying that news start... (Below threshold)
me:

is annoying that news start to appear in wikipedia. they may would like to wait a bit.
or they want to become CNN?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy