Slashdot Mirror
Got a Question for Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales?
We did our first Slashdot interview with Jimmy Wales back in 2001. We did another one in 2004. In 2005 we ran a feature article about Wikipedia's history. Now Wikipedia is in the news again, so this seems like a perfect time to make Jimmy Wales our first Slashdot Interview "three-peater." Ask whatever you like. Expect answers to 10 or 12 of the highest-moderated questions by next week.
How do you justify allowing any user to edit pages without verifying their background? It seems like a good idea in light of most of your arguments, but what no one has discussed yet is the problem of terrorists maliciously editing pages to support their causes, either by portraying events from their point of view, or spreading misinformation to harm freedom. I don't see how you can continue allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia without extensive background checks to prove that they are not terrorists or connected to terrorism.
let's roll!
In that vein, what was your most sastifying moment? Was recently blocking the US Congress's IP addresses high on the list? Did you hear the cheer that bitch-slapping aroused in the real world?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The Wikipedia entry for Zionism paints Zionism and Zionists as a wholly positive phenonmenon. There are many examples of behavior by Zionists and others in the name of Zionism, however, which support a more realistic understanding of Zionism as a phenomenon which is anything but wholly positive in the 20th and 21st centuries. How is it that Wikipedia has come to, in effect, misrepresent the phenomenon of Zionism in this regard, with Wikipedia effectively serving as a an instrument of Zionist propaganda rather than as an accurate and credible source of knowledge about the phenomenon of Zionism? Your answer to this is important in helping us understand whether or not Wikipedia's foundation and its rules can ever effectively resist manipulation and control by administrators who have an agenda which only overlaps the truth when it does not threaten ongoing revision of events by administrators who use Wikipedia as a selfserving promotional instrument.