--- Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it wrote:

Well I suppose it is time to go "back to ordinary" functioning of Wikipedia (anonymous users can create articles - this is even easier to check to my opinion - just switch off all registered users and have special regard to anonymous page creations).

The Nature study looked at articles that Britannica and Wikipedia share. Those are much, much more likely to be widely watched and linked. Articles on fringe subjects and semi-famous people and places will not have as many eyeballs on them. Seigenthaler was one such semi-famous person. So the Nature study proves nothing in regards to where we have our real problems.

-- mav

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Sabine Cretella wrote:

http://www.golem.de/0512/42221.html well ... this is why page creation by anonymous users is not so bad ... And why it is impossible that Encyclopedia britannica needs to proof and reproof each single word it writes http://www.golem.de/0512/42221.html "both" encyclopeadias - this means even that one that according to our infos needs to proof every single word - has the same amout of critical errors in the same articles only in different places ... - hmmmmm ..... (sorry I don't have time to translate this article - maybe there's an English one around as well???)

I don't know German, so I'm leaving the URLs there for someone who does!

Well I suppose it is time to go "back to ordinary" functioning of Wikipedia (anonymous users can create articles - this is even easier to check to my opinion - just switch off all registered users and have special regard to anonymous page creations).

I would very much like to see anon page creations go back on but with a prefilled new article template, something like http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034414.html

- d.