Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia To Require Editing Approval
The NY Times reports on an epochal move by Wikipedia — within weeks, the formerly freewheeling encyclopedia will begin requiring editor approval for all edits to articles about living people. "The new feature, called 'flagged revisions,' will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia's servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version. ... The new editing procedures... have been applied to the entire German-language version of Wikipedia during the last year... Although Wikipedia has prevented anonymous users from creating new articles for several years now, the new flagging system crosses a psychological Rubicon. It will divide Wikipedia's contributors into two classes — experienced, trusted editors, and everyone else — altering Wikipedia's implicit notion that everyone has an equal right to edit entries."
Indeed, and in fact, this is a step forward: currently the only method at the moment is to protect articles, locking anonymous and new editors out completely. With this system, they'll now be allowed to edit again.
I heard that a few years ago, the page for George W Bush was vandalized on average every 30 seconds or so. It's definitely that people have proven themselves unequal when it comes to editing.
(I'm no fan of Bush, that isn't bias)
For that matter, it can also prevent left-wing nutjobs from removing favorable aspects from the pages of their political opponents. In fact, it will slow down and possibly prevent the vandalism of pages by fruitcakes from all parts of the political spectrum.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
What is the qualification process for earning "trust"?
Oh, that's easy. I know, I give away trade secrets here, but hey, you don't know what's my handle on Wikipedia, so I can enjoy the anonymity of the internet on this one.
1) Edit. Edit, edit, edit, edit. It's not what you edit, it's how often you do it. Being anal retentive and insistant in British spelling (or American, if it's spelled in BE) helps a lot here. Start with the pages of actors, you'll get heaps of "theater/theatre" edits for cheap.
2) Learn who is important and who is not. Having a good memory for names helps, but so does a good list. Do not skip this step, it can be devastating later when you...
3) Undo edits from nobodies. No matter if they were contributing or vandalizing, what matters is that your edit-counter moves up. Make certain, though, that you don't do it to anyone who might be important enough to stink up a storm. People don't like being reverted, well, that's no problem if they don't count, but reverting a change from someone you're trying to suck up to is kinda a career killer.
4) Suck up to someone important. The discussion pages are for that. Join every topic that could be remotely controversal and butt in. You learned in Step 2 who is important and who isn't. Use it.
Ok, cynicism aside. But it seems that a lot of people do just that. They see Wikipedia as some sort of game they want to "win". There are of course a few (often rather "old") contributors that earned their status with important, insightful and accurate information, but more and more people climb that "ladder" only by gaming the system. That these people then will have the power to dictate what becomes canon and what doesn't is a bit of a chill up my spine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.