Slashdot Mirror


Not As Wiki As It Used To Be

jonney02 writes "The BBC NEWS is running a story about how Wikipedia plans to take back control due to the recent onslaught of malformed articles." It's always been a scary balance between allowing total anonymous participation in a web forum, and preventing yourself from being overrun. I don't envy the Wikipedia designers one bit.

9 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. Re:4 months... by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 3, Funny

    He tried to, but now the page is full of ^H^H^H^H

  2. Let me demonstrate something for you by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    You are a total fucking moron. You think that just because people have a login ID that they are somehow all of a sudden more likely to treat others with respect and behave with decorum? Were you sucking dick while they were handing out brains?

    Sincerely,

    Logged in person

  3. Re:Who watches the watchers? by DaoudaW · · Score: 5, Funny

    And who decides who will be part of the cadre?

    Hey, I've got an idea. Let's do something based on the Hindu concept of rewards for good deeds. We could call it "Karma". Like if someone had done a bunch of editing that nobody disapproved of they could accumulate points and after they get a certain number of points they earn the right to approve changes... we could call that "moderating."

  4. Re:Corruption by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Funny

    give everyone the power to make changes, and you can guarantee they will not all be entirely scrupulous or responsible.

    "Scrupulous and responsible"!?! Dood! How about "old enough to shave"? More edits to global geo-political articles in wikipedia are crafted in a week as a result of dares made in the backseats of school buses than in a decade's worth of Britannicas. Why not just take the ten most altered articles each day and have the people watching MTV's Total Request Live call in and vote for the changes in history they most want to see?

  5. Re:Approved by administrators before publishing ? by T-Ranger · · Score: 2, Funny

    NO INDEPENDENT RESEARCH!

    Clearly, you dont cite the treaty, you need to cite someone else who discusses the treaty.

  6. Re:Sources by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Funny

    We could all be forced to enter our AOL id number in :D

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  7. Re:The implosion begins by autophile · · Score: 4, Funny
    Now here's my suggestion on how to fix it. They need to hire a few full time staffers with their donations and have them handle written applications to contribute to Wikipedia. Let anyone with sound credentials contribute, but require that they prove that they have some idea of what they are talking about.

    Dear Sir:

    I hereby submit my application, attached, to become a contributor to Wikipedia. Specifically, that section of Wikipedia that deals with the 1970's. Specifically, 1970's American television. More specifically, 1970's American television commercials. Specifically, the 1979 American television commercial for Planters Peanuts depicting a man being chased for his delicious nuts. Although many of the people who worked on this commercial are dead, dying, ill, or on vacation in Belgium, I was part of the janitorial staff at the editing house where this particular commercial was cut, and during my very long breaks, I observed with a keen and jaundiced eye the cutting of this animated gem. I am also neither dead, dying, ill, nor on vacation in Belgium.

    I look forward to your quick acceptance of my editorship. I have some very interesting revelatory facts about Mr. Peanut that I would like to add to the article.

    Yours,

    (name redacted)
    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  8. Re:Approved by administrators before publishing ? by tomstdenis · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about I cite someone who may cite someone who cites a paper which cites a person who cited the original news article in which the treaty was cited?

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  9. Suggested Alternative Names by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 2, Funny

    Given the imminent new nature of the beast, I'd like to suggest some new names for the project (since we're diminishing the wiki part of Wikipedia).

    - Webcyclopedia
    - Nixipedia
    - Wikipedian't
    - Quasiwikipedia
    - Wonkipedia
    - Analpedia
    - AllYourBaseAreBelongToPedia
    - Alternapedia
    - Hippipedia
    - GrainOfSaltipedia
    - 'Pedia
    - Wikipedia II: The Electric Bugaloo
    - Stickipedia
    - Nazipedia
    - Pedia Pedia
    - The Resource Formerly Known As Wikipedia
    - Disney's Mickipedia