? A Bloggy Holiday Season |
| Snowy morning in Jersey, why doesn't our school superintendent blog? ?
December 04, 2005
Wikipedia Makes News
Well, exactly, after news of people on Wikipedia making up news, Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales is now barring anonymous users from creating new articles, CNET reports. Via Dave Winer who has strong views on this.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wikipedia Makes News:
? Wikipedia: Growing Pains -- or Just Pains? from http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/index.html#112938568736465461
Founder Jimmy Wales says the online encyclopedia will no longer allow anonymous users to create new articles. That's nice. Of course, anonymous users still will be able to edit existing entries, a la Adam Curry. [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2005 11:07 PM
? Wiki trouble from Mike's Points
BW's Heather Green has a nice tidbit about the problem with people posting biased and just plain wrong information anonymously at Wikipedia. (Originally via Dave Winer.) Now, to try to resolve that problem, Wikipedia will not allow anonymous postings. ... [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2005 11:27 PM
? Growing pains for Wikipedia | CNET News.com from The Cynosural Blog
There's been quite a bit of discussion over the recent problems with articles on Wikipedia, from Dave Winer to Dan Gillmor and News.com (see linked quotes below). Much of this discussion focuses on the authority and accountability of Wikipedia and sim... [Read More]
Tracked on December 5, 2005 01:30 PM
It is a natural evolution for Wikipedia, and I really don't think that it is such a big deal. Anyone can still create an account and login, if they want to start a new article. Anonymous users can still edit existing entries.
Requiring a login just adds a level of accountability that will eliminate spam and make the lives of volunteer wiki editors easier.
Posted by: Adam Saunders at December 4, 2005 10:51 PM
Of course, the bulk of society is good, decent and honest. But, because not 100 percent of the public is good, decent and honest, we have laws and law enforcement.
Wikipedia is simply the Web or informational version of a society without law enforcement. It relies on vigilantes. There will always be problems with anything wiki, especially when there is no guidance or assigned watchful eye.
Posted by: Mike Driehorst at December 4, 2005 10:57 PM
I fully agree with Adam.All guests can create account,but without account they must can only read article and write comments. It clean all spam from blog,i think.Fix me if i'm not right.Thanks.
Posted by: Nataly at December 5, 2005 03:20 AM
Looks like the mainstream press -- AP -- picked up on the Wikipedia issue.
Posted by: Mike Driehorst at December 5, 2005 03:57 AM
Thanks for the pointer.
Posted by: Heather Green at December 5, 2005 04:30 AM
It shouldn't help much - you can still create an account anonomously.
Wikipedia should never be considered trustworthy.
Posted by: James at December 5, 2005 06:27 AM
I guess I do wonder as well whether that will be enough. It still leaves open any kind of editing on existing articles.
Posted by: Heather Green at December 5, 2005 08:33 PM
Adam doesn't seem to understand how Wikipedia works - and Heather is correct. Anyone anonymous can still change anything they like on the site, so it's just as unaccountable as before.
The Wikipedians seem to have learned nothing from this episode.
This article shows how Jimmy Wales edits his own biography like Adam Curry did last week: Who owns your Wikipedia bio? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/
Posted by: Paul M at December 6, 2005 05:33 PM
Well, considering that the Wiki content is provided by a large colloboration of users from across the world who have the power to edit, change and even abuse the content. Can we honestly say that wikipedia is without flaw an accurate source of information for scholors and learners everywhere. Infact, many people are even mislead to beleive that the content is all verified and just. Isn't it time we bring light to the misconception out there and hold wikipedia accountable for the accuracy of the content provided?
Please feel free to read my article for further analysis of this revolutionary information portal: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable-source-for-accurate-content/
Posted by: webwhiz at August 24, 2006 11:33 PM