Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Observer Gives Wikipedia Glowing Report

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the wiki-wiki dept.

JaxWeb writes "The UK newspaper The Observer is running an article about the open encyclopaedia Wikipedia. The article, 'Why encyclopaedic row speaks volumes about the old guard,' gives Wikipedia a glowing report and mentions some of the issues which have recently occurred regarding the project, including the need to lock the George Bush article in the run up to the election, and Ex-Britannica editor Robert McHenry's comments, as previously mentioned on Slashdot."

4 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Locking Articles by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do the Wikipedia admins need to lock popular, topical and controversial articles from editing? Is it because these articles somehow attract more vandals than well-meaning passersby and contributors?

    Or is it just that these popular, topical and controversial articles make Wikipedia's fundamental flaws more obvious?

    1. Re:Locking Articles by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I've seen obvious vandalism--and I mean obvious--on articles ranging from black hole theory to obscure Norwegian towns. Until I'd come along, they'd typically gone unreverted for weeks or more. And yes, I did revert them, but once you've read that a world-renowned figure skater was a member of GNAA, how can you trust anything you read on that site--especially when vandalism isn't always quite so obvious?

  2. What makes Wikipedia interesting by Solr_Flare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is that the wikipedia is designed around the original intent of the Internet in the first place. Nevermind what the internet has become in the modern era, it was originally designed to share and consolidate information from all its users. The Wikipedia is designed specifically to facilitate that. And, while in its default mode, it does leave itself open to people who want to make an arse of themselves, there are plenty of counter measures and options to such problems. All in all, it is satisfying to see the success of the project purely because it is nice to see the internet used for what it was intended for and do it well.

    --
    You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
  3. Not just "political", any contentious issue. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wikipedia is useful for some things, but when it comes to contentious political issues, it's pretty lousy.
    It's lousy for anything that people get upset about. It's useful for looking up historical names and dates and events.

    That is all.

    Well, it's also useful for playing games with pages that you don't agree with until they get locked.