After months of deliberation, Wikipedia plans to roll out "flagged revisions" on the English-language version of its encyclopedia, signaling a break from its free-wheeling practices of yesteryear.
With "flagged revisions," Wikipedia will require an experienced editor on the site to review all updates made by the public to entries on living people before they can go live. Such edits, pre-approval, will sit on a Wikipedia server in the sky, anxiously awaiting their OK.
The idea that Wikipedia may need to revamp its practices arose earlier this year when entries for two Senators -- Robert Byrd and the now-late Edward Kennedy -- wrongly pronounced the men dead. (Whoops.) In light of that awkward situation, Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, decided it might be time for a change.
Still, common sense is not so common, and the idea to introduce flagged revisions was met with resistance. Some Wikipedia editors complained the new process would cause a huge back-log.
Well. Boo. Hoo.
Point of order: Does it strike anyone else funny that the big news here is that Wikipedia has made a bold decision to start striving for accuracy? Isn't that, like, what the whole point of an encyclopedia is? To provide accurate information?
In its story about "flagged revisions," The New York Times writes: "The change is part of a growing realization on the part of Wikipedia's leaders that as the site grows more influential, they must transform its embrace-the-chaos culture into something more mature and dependable." According to Michael Snow, chairman of the Wikimedia board, who is quoted in the article, "We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks."
So, eight years and 60 million monthly visitors later, Wikipedia no longer thinks it's acceptable to publish inaccurate information. Gee. That makes sense. Now that it has amassed this great audience, the folks behind the resource are ready and willing to start rewarding readers with factual information approved by editors.
It just sounds a bit backward to me.
Despite the reaction of some angry Wikipedians, the addition of "flagged revisions" is not shocking. It's a logical step, one that should have been implemented from the start. And the fact that anyone behind the scenes at Wikipedia ever thought it was "acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks," is problematic and represents the reversed priorities of the Web-wide masses.
Wikipedia's shift from half-assedness to tighter restrictions is in line with how much of the Web works -- particularly the blogosphere -- where accuracy comes a distant second to high traffic and rapid posting. While the encyclopedia is now making an effort to put accuracy first, at least when it comes to entries on living people, its first priority was to become a fast success.
Watching Wikipedia morph from chaos to managed chaos is further proof that, while content may be "King" on this World Wide Web of ours, "good, quality content" is need for ruling power.
this goes along with my comments on another blog about who's "reality" is the real reality??...
Certainly the Wiki is intended to be more current than a traditional Encyclopedia, but that doesn't excuse it from being subject to representations of fact that are verified and validated -- otherwise it needs to be called something else.
Re: "Have you been able to dig into why they're really changing their tune, here??"
Hi JD, I haven't been able to dig out anything fishy, just what's written here, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was pressure to do this (again, speculation). Typically people don't like when an encyclopedia pronounces them dead a little early or incorrectly links them with a president's assassination.
In 2005, the prominent author and journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. discovered that Wikipedia's biographical article connected him to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, a particularly scurrilous thing to report because he was personally close to the Kennedy family.
Re: "On a more serious note, does the flag review only limited to entries of living persons or it applies to all other wiki entries??"
Hey Paul. For now it's just living persons because those entries are most often vandalized and because -- when they are vandalized -- they cause damage to actual people. Or at least that's how Wiki explains it. Purportedly this will eventually extend to other content, but Wales acknowledges this whole thing as an experiment. So we'll see.
PaulJ, well said. As far as Wikipedia's success goes, the site has already built its database, so I don't think editing content will hold them back much. But I think success will depend on how reliable the site is going forward. What I do see Wikipedia losing here is its ability to "scoop" all other media. Most likely the first place we'll learn about someone's death won't be Wikipedia anymore -- it'll be a site like Twitter where there are no filters.
But so what? More important to build an accurate resource than be first with the news that so-and-so is dead.
Encyclopedia Brittanica has been doing this for a very long time and their people get paid, they still sell hardcover volumes, CDs, DVDs, and have a Web presence...
Maybe it's time the Netizens realize that "Free" is what it is and the old adage of "You Get What You Pay For" holds true here...
That's why I'd like to see these guys give up the ghost and just change the name; WikiMania fits, -- go with it boys...
Have you been able to dig into why they're really changing their tune, here??
I could speculate that a lawsuit or two might have been in their future based on some of the purported "facts" presented on the site... (But I have nothing to validate that, just a speculation here folks.)
Hey, they could just change the name to WikiMania and let the chaos continue!!
The idea seems pretty interesting and this might be a great need for Wikipedia, but come to think about it and you will find it very impractical to implement!
Firstly, you mention "an experienced editor" who would be responsible to approve the additions. It would be a huge task for the poor fellow to verify each addition or change and approve or reject it. The wiki would no longer be up to date and current.
Secondly, how can the editor verify the information! Wikipedia has tons of information about a million different things happening in or belonging to several parts of the world. Could one person (or a group of persons) be able to verify information about everything on the website?
Lets say Wikipedia thinks about these problems above and decides to have a large team of experts who will verify the changes. These experts need to belong to different regions and have expertise in diverse areas. If Wikipedia can find such people to work voluntarily, thats good enough. Otherwise, given its no ad policy, it may not be able to afford that.
Why pick on FOX when it's obvious to all that the likes of CNN and MSNBC are fastly beoming irrelevance except for the leftists loons who can put up with the daily crap they are dishing out.
By the way, we are talking here about Wikipedia and it amazes me how folks like you can easily spin a discussion way beyond the original purpose of the blog.
On a more serious note, does the flag review only limited to entries of living persons or it applies to all other wiki entries??
"number of people who post on wikis is also growing....but the quality is decreasing..."
That's the second law of thermodynamics. Without a forcing function - in this case, flagging - the downward trend will continue.
But the interesting thing for me is what the social experiment called Wikipedia says about user generated content - without a gardner, there is no garden. The core concept of a wiki is that users generate and edit the content. But just because technology allows users to generate and edit content clearly does not mean that a wiki content will be accurate.
Content is king, but it requires content managers who are accountable for the content.
The following questions now remain:
Can Wikipedia maintain its success with the new un-wiki-like process in place?
Given the incredible breadth of topics covered in Wikipedia, can they keep up? Can there be a process to effectively manage the complete knowledge of mankind?
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
In another step toward becoming socially acceptable, Google today unveiled "Google Buzz" -- a method for social sharing from inside Gmail. Naturally, some ever-creative types are already dubbing this release as a "Twitter-killer" and a "Facebook-killer." Because, we just can't get enough of that kind of language.
Hey, IE Radio lovers: We're live right now with Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM). You won't want to miss this, so hurry up and head on over!
We hope you can tune in for an IE Radio interview today with a true industry innovator, Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM. We're talking to Jonas today at 3:00 p.m. ET. Do. Not. Miss. It.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s recent unveiling of its "magical" iPad may have fanboys counting the days until March, but if a recent poll on Internet Evolution is any indication, not everyone is buying into the hype.
We do a lot of grousing here on Internet Evolution, and usually for good reason, considering the amount of nonsense that keeps this industry afloat on its cloud of hot steamy air!!!! But... we can still happily acknowledge those titans who have succeeded in leading the way or paving new ground in their respective fields and, in turn, give credit when it is well deserved.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
