Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Semi-Protection Begins
seanvaandering writes "Admins began applying their recently announced 'Wikipedia semi-protection' feature this week. The first articles to be semi-protected were George W. Bush, Hitler, and Jesus Christ, barring the newest 1% of all users and anonymous visitors from modifying the article (apparently Satan didn't make the cut). Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Time to change that motto then huh?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
The real joke is the ridiculous introduction to the topic. Of course Wikipedia is going to have problems where they are excessively idealistic. However, I don't think this is a very good solution. I think it would be better to use a form of controlled moderation. If an article is getting too many changes, too much reading activity, or is just manually designated as 'potentially troublesome', then all changes should be put on a pending status, and should be reviewed by randomly selected visitors before they are approved for general public visibility.
Wikipedia could actually do it by asking the next readers of any edited article whether or not they wanted to see the old 'approved' version or if they would be willing to consider the changes in the new article. If they want to see the changes, then they would see them in color, and they would have a form to check on to agree that those changes seem reasonable and should be included in the new page. Just an arbitrary example, but you might set the rule so that after five people approve of the changes, then they are considered part of the normal page, but if anyone disagrees with the proposed changes, then they article automatically moves into 'controversial status' for more attention. (And yes, you neeed to track the IP addresses to make sure the same guy doesn't try to read the article five times to approve his own changes.) Actually, the number of approvals required should probably be a function of the number of people reading the article.
In conclusion, such a proposal won't eliminate all abuse, but Wikipedia is not endangered.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I would agree.
Slashdot is a real pain.
I've been banned frequenlty from posting my views simply because my view as a republican supporter is not the flavor here on Slashdot.
A modding system ran by monkeys with no brains would be better.
Well, bang goes another 30 days of posting.
I was going to make a humourous reply to your attempt at a joke, but you are an idiot.
6 million dead Jews think you are an idiot, too. 1 million each of gays, Gypsies/Roma, Poles, the mentally ill and retarded, several million Russians, six slashdotters think you are an idiot.
You are not worth wasting karma on, either.
The problem with people who post things like this anti-Bush rant is that, while they state how individual rights are being trampled (and I agree), they then tend to somehow convert that into the idea that you should vote for a Democrat instead. Folks, if you care about individual rights and equality, you do NOT want a Democrat in power. Democrats are all about socialism. Read your history; the Democrats merged with the Socialists back around the 1930s, and the Democrats have been very closely connected to the Socialist movement ever since. If you don't believe in individual rights, the right to own property, or any limits on government power, vote Democrat, because that's what you're asking for. If you want to have any rights left at all, you do NOT want to vote Democrat.
However, since you can dismiss me as a rude person since I don't care whether you are an idiot or ignornant, then why don't you designate me as a "foe". It will be a convenient way for us to ignore each other forever.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.