[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

[Fred Bauder]

The root of the problem is that using our software and site a person  
is able to do harm to another anonymously. This harm is then  
"innocently" spread by Google and our mirrors.

It is rather time consuming and difficult to actually identify an  
editor. Much more difficult then say validating a credit card (which,  
if the money arrives, is good).

Perhaps we should run two versions: a public version which could be  
googled and mirrored and a semi-private version which could not be  
googled or mirrored. The public version would be cited and fact- 
checked; the semi-private version a work in progress.

To implement this, google would be blocked from the main site and no  
distribution would be made of its contents. The public version would  
be built from scratch with all information fact checked.

This would also prevent using our site for googlebombing which is a  
major motive with some exploitive users.

Fred

On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Keith Old wrote:

> We should look again at allowing anonymous edits, This seems to  
> have been
> the root of the problem.
>
> Blogs and webforums have more rigorous requirements to leave  
> remarks than we
> do. I acknowledge that most anonymous editors contribute in good  
> faith but
> many do not.
> Further, the cost of cleaning up after the ones who do not detracts  
> from the
> main work of writing the encyclopedia. I am not calling for  
> credentialism
> but registering as a user.
>
> It also means that many users are blocked for 24 hours as a result of
> sharing an IP with a vandal. I had to change my ISP last year  
> because of
> vandalism from someone else. We also have had rogue registered  
> users but at
> least we have procedures to deal with those.
>
> Further, the anonymous nature of the edits means that many edits are
> unfairly discounted because people can't be sure of the value of  
> the edits.
> As a volunteer of the help desk, I am aware of at least two  
> professors who
> have tried to edit but have had their edits removed. That may have  
> been fair
> enough in one case but the point remains. A point made by Professor X
> carries much more weight than a point made by IP 123.xx.
>
> A similar problem occurs with copyvios. On a couple of occasions,  
> people
> have uploaded material from their personal webpages which have been  
> speedy
> deleted as copyvios. If they were identified, there would have been a
> greater chance that their right would have been recognised.
>
> We need to do a cost/benefit analysis showing what we gain from  
> allowing
> anonymous edits compared to the losses of cleaning up vandalism from
> anonymous edits.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Keith Old
>
> Keith Old
> User:Capitalistroadster
>
> On 11/30/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Andrew Lih wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know what you're saying, and I don't think anyone on the
>>> Foundation-L list would endorse anything like regulation or being on
>>> the hook legally.
>>> But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls -- "SOFIXIT"
>>> does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the bragging  
>>> rights of
>>> a "Top 40" web site without changing its quality standards to match.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The problem is that we peaked way too early. The site is late- 
>> alpha or
>> early beta at best, and should have big 1995-style yellow and black
>> "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" GIFs with really bad aliasing on most pages.
>>
>> There's no drastic solution that won't fuck up the community  
>> operations
>> of the site. Running a hack'n'slash cull on the live site will  
>> lead to
>> the current webcomics debacle times a thousand. We already have
>> specialists in all sorts of areas saying they don't even want to  
>> bother
>> starting to write up something they know for Wikipedia because (quote
>> from Sunday's UK meet) "some idiot will delete it *because* they  
>> don't
>> understand it." Imagine that outside attitude for a thousand  
>> specialist
>> subjects.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm not convinced the Article Rating feature that is waiting in the
>>> wings is the right or efficient way to do it. But we have to get
>>> closer to the "1.0" solution. It's time.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There isn't a fast way and article rating isn't a fast way either.  
>> There
>> is no silver bullet. We are early beta (usable and testable but  
>> mostly
>> composed of bugs) and the real world will need to get used to that,
>> because there is no way to change that in the next week or month.
>>
>> I suspect we'll actually be able to work better if we're not  
>> flavour of
>> the month.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>