Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Look at the Editorial Changes on Wikipedia

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the troll-combat dept.

prostoalex writes "New York Times Technology section this weekend is running an extensive article on Wikipedia and recent changes to the editorial policy. Due to high level of partisan involvement some political topics like George Bush, Tony Blair and Opus Dei are currently either protected (editorials are allowed only to a selected group of Wikipedia members) or semi-protected (anyone who has had an account for more than four days can edit the article). From the article: 'Protection is a tool for quality control, but it hardly defines Wikipedia,' Mr. Wales said. 'What does define Wikipedia is the volunteer community and the open participation.'"

3 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Re:wikipedia!=encyclopedia by drgonzo59 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I got modded down on Slashdot by not praising and worshiping Wikipedia! What a surprise...! Ok, how about this 'LInUS is TeH BestESt!" - will I get modded backup now I wonder...

  2. Re:Recent editorial changes? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Several years ago the George Bush article kept being reverted back and forth between vandalized versions and unvandalized versions so much...
    Another proof that wikipedia is accurate. GW keeps flopping out from reality so often, so maybe locking him permanently in La-La land would do him good, not to mention us.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  3. Re:wikipedia!=encyclopedia by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    A fact is only as good as it's source
    Fact: that apostrophe doesn't belong there. Source: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgr ammar/apostrophe?view=uk Happy now?
    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.