Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia To Unlock Frequently Vandalized Pages

Posted by timothy on from the when-hitler-came-up-with-scientology dept.

netbuzz writes "In an effort to encourage greater participation, Wikipedia, the self-described 'online encyclopedia that anyone can edit,' is turning to tighter editorial control as a substitute for simply 'locking' those entries that frequently attract mischief makers and ideologues. The new system, which will apply to a maximum of 2,000 most-vulnerable pages, is sure to create controversies of its own."

6 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hypocrisy by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One can only make an honest attempt. For most topics, it should be possible to find an impartial editor. There may be some fringe topics where an impartial POV is impossible, but those topics aren't terribly important in the grand scheme of things.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. I think it's a terrible idea. by VShael · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even leaving aside the obvious entries on religion, abortion, evolution, etc... We also have to deal with viral marketing firms who, for example, kept editing the entry for the faux-dokumentary "The Fourth Kind" trying to make it seem real.

    There are simply more people willing to discredit Wikipedia, not just the small percentage of the population who indulge in trolling behaviour for shits and giggles.

  3. Re:Tools have improved for vandalism, screening wo by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The WikiProject model has a peer-review process. Just create a WikiProject for frequently-vandalized pages.

    ironically, I just made a joke post to that effect, but now I realize it's the best course of action.

  4. Oh really? Then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...which is the correct "neutral fact" regarding the recent Taliban act which took the life of a 7 year old boy for spying? They say they "punished" him, we say they "murdered" him. Who is correct?

  5. How about a warning? by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everybody knows Wikipedia is often very helpful, but occasionally can't be trusted. The problem is, Wikipedia doesn't seem to give feedback about *when* vandalism, non-neutrality, and other problems are likely. Of course it can happen anywhere, but for some pages, vandalism is an epidemic.

    How about if the Wikipedia engine automatically identified pages with very high rates of reverted page edits, "vandalism" and other similar terms appearing in the history, rapidly growing Talk:: sections, and other signs of trouble, and came right out and said in a top-of-page banner: this page is rapidly changing, and may be unreliable.

    This can be done mechanically, without having possibly biased editors to flag or protect pages, or to approve or disapprove changes. As a reader, if I know that the page I'm reading has been modified 20 times in the past week, with edits affecting 50% of the total text, most of which were reverted, I can form my own conclusion about its current reliability.

  6. Re:Hypocrisy by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Talk to an OB sometime. People are all talk - when presented with an abnormal fetus, it's an odd few who will opt not to abort.

    And I have absolutely no data, but a strong suspicion that a typical pro-lifer would have a really strong temptation to take that morning after pill offered by rape counselors.

    I file it all under the human tendency to tell others what to do, while exempting oneself from said edict. Reality is one cold mo-fo.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.