Wikipedia tightens up

[Steve]

The ever growing online open encylcopedia came under fire recently for an article which, a journalist claims, falsely implicated him in the Kennedy assassination. Users must now be registered before they can create a wiki entry in the wikipedia.

While it would not prevent people from posting false information, the new process will make it easier, said Wales, for the site's 600 active volunteers to review and remove factual errors, defaming statements and other material that runs afoul of Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia visitors will still be able to edit content already posted without registering. It takes 15 to 20 seconds to create an account on the Web site, and an e-mail address is not required.

[CNN]

[DavidM]

What a sad situation, but I can't blame them for this.

I run a wiki on one of my own sites, and recently had to disable editing in much the same way due to abuse from anoymous editors..

[superscaper]

I just really don't understand people who deliberately ruin things like that. I can almost understand hackers who hack for the intellectual challenge but just editing something seems really childish to me. It's no cleverer than writing rude words on a classroom blackboard.

As for the actual reason for the change in wiki, people should be more aware that it's a public forum and writing about people and organisations can lead to libel whether intentioned or not. People should just think more about what they write and whether they are using genuine sources.

[just_laze]

I love Wikipedia, it's a great learning-resource and i often use it for computer-related acronyms.

[Steve]

I love Wikipedia, it's a great learning-resource and i often use it for computer-related acronyms.

You mean for CRAs?

[DavidM]

No, for TLAs

[DivideByZero]

The journalist was just a moany idiot who really doesn't realise what Wikipedia is. He could of just edited the article if it's inaccurate. You're supposed to contribute to the truth, not whine about how Wikipedia is making false accusations.

[smtkr]

Well, there are just some subjects that can't be written about objectively (i.e. George W. Bush).

wikipedia.org is still my most valued resource on the internet for my general meandering when I'm bored at work. I have edited a few articles (like when some loser decides to post something like 'teh r0XorZ' in the middle of a medical article).

[TinnionA]

The wikipedia is fine - until you start using it as a serious resource. I use it kind of like a "my first encyclopedia" and look elsewhere for more in-depth stuff.

The trouble with it being produced by the community is that you have no indication of the accuracy of the articles. A significant problem when you're supposed to be writing a report about it.

[herulach]

Aparrently the guy that did it has owned up
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Author_o...responsibility

[Matt1eD]

HEXUS is now off Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...deletion/HEXUS



If they want such a good encyclopedia of all things existant and all information then they should include Hexus.

[herulach]

HEXUS is now off Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...deletion/HEXUS



If they want such a good encyclopedia of all things existant and all information then they should include Hexus.

Seems a little bit harsh, when one fo the reasons was completly wrong.

. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members; -- Right from their webpage: Currently Active Users: 391 (84 members and 307 guests)

Clearly the guy was looking at the currently online, rather than total members.

Think the national media thing is probably wrong too, since there is the column in custom pc.

And im sure hexus must have won some awards. at some point.