If we diagnose what went wrong in the Seigenthaler case, this seems like a very opportune place to try a small change of policy.
- First, the Seigenthaler article was created by an anon.
What does that have to do with anything? Please assume good faith. The person who wrote the text might have gotten Seigenthaler mixed up with another person who might actually have been suspected of being a Soviet spy etc. A registered user could aswell have made the same mistake. I certainly had no idea who this Seigenthaler dude was and wouldn't have been able to spot the errors in the article. Now I know - he's a litigous asshole looking for revenge. What was written about him on Wikipedia is peanuts compared to how the printed press regularily treats famous persons. He should consider himself lucky if involvement in the Kennedy assassination is the worst be has been accused for.
Don't get me wrong, I like experiments. Experiments are good because you learn something even if you fail. But the arguments for initiating this experiment is totally bullshit. That there is (and will be) false statements in Wikipedia is a direct consequence of it being open. If you want to remove the possibility of cry-babies like Johnny boy coming and whining, the only thing to do is to close down the site for editing for good.
If you want to deal with the spam and random vandalism, there are adequate and unobtrusive technical measures you can use. For example, let a bayesian filter tag each edit. But no. Instead all this panicking and draconian measures that undoubtedly *WILL* make honest contributors life harder.
-- mvh Björn