Is it only me, or is anyone else dumbfounded by the assertion that soliciting people with.edu accounts to screen content edit proposals in their purported area of expertise will somehow make the content less biased? Can anyone who has been on a university campus in the last thirty years honestly say this with a straight face?
I used to be really, really skeptical of wikipedia, but they proved me wrong. The community editing thing actually works. Ten year olds posting infantile graffiti is a non-issue, in my experience, and bias actually does seem to flatten out when the whole world can edit anything that you say.
The main problem that I still see on the fringes of the Wikipedia experience is ad copy about products and other vanity copy posted by interested parties staying up because no one is interested enough in the specific person or thing to find the time to write a real article to replace it and it's not quite obvious or offensive enough to just delete. Not a big problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it only me, or is anyone else dumbfounded by the assertion that soliciting people with .edu accounts to screen content edit proposals in their purported area of expertise will somehow make the content less biased? Can anyone who has been on a university campus in the last thirty years honestly say this with a straight face?
I used to be really, really skeptical of wikipedia, but they proved me wrong. The community editing thing actually works. Ten year olds posting infantile graffiti is a non-issue, in my experience, and bias actually does seem to flatten out when the whole world can edit anything that you say.
The main problem that I still see on the fringes of the Wikipedia experience is ad copy about products and other vanity copy posted by interested parties staying up because no one is interested enough in the specific person or thing to find the time to write a real article to replace it and it's not quite obvious or offensive enough to just delete. Not a big problem.