Wikipedia's login process is one of the least intrusive on the web. Captcha might be helpful, but might be unnecessary, and yes, we're hoping for this to be *just* an experiment (for the time being).
YES! You hit the nail on the head. Way to go, Jamesday.
It is really too bad about the article and Mr. Seigenthaler, but I agree completely in that the website cannot be held accountable for the actions of one user. Simply because the article's author did not know how to find out who wrote it does not make this Wikipedia's fault. Thank you Jamesday.
If content is posted on Wikipedia that doesn't fall under the Fair Use provision in U.S. copyright law or a copyright infringement (see [[Template:Copyvio]]) has occured, there is a system in place to remove it. We (Wikipedia editors) regularly delete (not just revert), content that is illegal and/or just plain bad (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]], [[Wikipedia:Images for deletion]], and others). If someone writes libel on Slashdot, do reporters go after Slashdot? No. It's the same with a bulliten board. They can ask for the content to be removed or changed, but don't go against the bulliten board or the website as a whole, which is exactly what happened here.
Simply put, Wikipedia is *not* above the law; rather it is more familiar with it, and knows what is and is not illegal. Wikipedia is a great tool for those who care to use it. It is not perfect, but it's damn close.
Maybe something along the lines of [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policysemi-protection]]? (For you non-wikians, the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-prote ction_policy) is to a proposed policy that hopes to deal with vandalism to high-profile pages. Might slashdot users, who often come to our site through this one, be interested?
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia's login process is one of the least intrusive on the web. Captcha might be helpful, but might be unnecessary, and yes, we're hoping for this to be *just* an experiment (for the time being).
har har har. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_t he_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_cor rected_in_Wikipedia, http://members.cox.net/kevin82/eberrors.htm, and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/42095 75.stm
YES! You hit the nail on the head. Way to go, Jamesday. It is really too bad about the article and Mr. Seigenthaler, but I agree completely in that the website cannot be held accountable for the actions of one user. Simply because the article's author did not know how to find out who wrote it does not make this Wikipedia's fault. Thank you Jamesday.
If content is posted on Wikipedia that doesn't fall under the Fair Use provision in U.S. copyright law or a copyright infringement (see [[Template:Copyvio]]) has occured, there is a system in place to remove it. We (Wikipedia editors) regularly delete (not just revert), content that is illegal and/or just plain bad (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]], [[Wikipedia:Images for deletion]], and others). If someone writes libel on Slashdot, do reporters go after Slashdot? No. It's the same with a bulliten board. They can ask for the content to be removed or changed, but don't go against the bulliten board or the website as a whole, which is exactly what happened here. Simply put, Wikipedia is *not* above the law; rather it is more familiar with it, and knows what is and is not illegal. Wikipedia is a great tool for those who care to use it. It is not perfect, but it's damn close.
Maybe something along the lines of [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policysemi-protection]]? (For you non-wikians, the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-prote ction_policy) is to a proposed policy that hopes to deal with vandalism to high-profile pages. Might slashdot users, who often come to our site through this one, be interested?