Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia to Restrict Creation of Articles

cine writes "News.com reports that starting Monday Wikipedia will restrict the creation of new articles to members. Anonymous users will only be able to edit existing articles. This move comes after a controversial week for the free online encyclopedia" From the article: "Wales said the Seigenthaler article not only escaped the notice of this corps of watchdogs, but it also became a kind of needle in a haystack: The page remained unchanged for so long because it wasn't linked to from any other Wikipedia articles, depriving it of traffic that might have led to closer scrutiny."

11 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. That's Okay by bclark · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was never the first to post an article anyway.

  2. Re:Template:High-traffic by Arandir · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't the project predicated on the belief that more eyeballs make an article better, not worse?

    No, it's predicated on the belief that an infinite number of trolls will eventually produce an objective authoritative reference work.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  3. Re:Good move! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Indeed. Anonymous Cowards never have anything important to say!

  4. The real problem by Kohath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's the real problem with this episode:

    1. Some jackass complains about something

    2. People listen and decide they care.

    3. Wikipedia is changed to suit the needs of the complainer.

    The mistake was #2.

    A more correct action:

    2. Fix the article.

    3. Issue an insincere apology.

    4. Ignore subsequent whining by irrelevant jackasses.

    5. Continue as before.

  5. In related news... by merc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot reports that soon, slashdot editors will only accept story submissions which contain severe grammatical or spelling errors, which are dupes of stories you have already sumbitted.

    *blinks*

    joking!

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  6. To add insult to injury by jim_v2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...the Seigenthaler article not only escaped the notice of this corps of watchdogs, but it also became a kind of needle in a haystack: The page remained unchanged for so long because it wasn't linked to from any other Wikipedia articles, depriving it of traffic..."

    Not only does the Wikipedia contain incorrect information about Mr. Seigenthaler, but they now also let out that he's not important enough for anyone to care about his biography. /hilarity

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  7. Re:Is there a difference? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Funny
    Actually, don't do that... I'd probably get agents knocking at my door for suggesting it.

    /puts on tinfoil hat.

  8. Poker nuts? by geeber · · Score: 2, Funny

    and this is over simplified so don't jump on me poker nuts

    Oy, me achin' poker nuts!

    Sometimes a comma is a good thing. Sorry, couldn't resist :)

  9. Re:Jimbo Wales & Seigenthaler on CNN by guanxi · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Now, you - you see the word Wikipedia, so you think encyclopedia and you think "Oh, okay, this is valid, good information." But yet, if you look at what happened to John, that's not the case, [quoting Kyra Phillips, CNN interviewer].

    Yeah, and some people see the words CNN and think, "okay, this is valid, good information."

  10. It was fun while it lasted by planetoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I would make articles like the year 2326, Wikipedia was my favorite place to play.

    --
    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  11. Re:Abuse of anonymity is the injury *AND* the insu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    SHUT UP FAGGOT