Pablo De Nápoli a écrit:
Hi Pablo
Your experience is interesting :-)
<snip>
It seems to me that the model of wikipedia is too
much open, so that open
that anyone can annonymously edit any page. That I think is to much.that at
least one should have to register and log in in order to modify a page, one
has to take a responsability for what is saying (specially for deleting some
one else work).
No one but an admin can delete someone else work. Admins are presumed of
trust. Even if one fail, another can undelete. Apart from that,
everything is kept in history. You may pick back some of the pas content
of that article to integrate it again in the current article anytime
In the current model, we don't know who write what
(even though, most civilizated wiikipedians do log in,
but I think this should
be mandatory)
We may be civilized even when not loggued
Another idea that comes to my mind is that there could
be some teams for
especific topics, that manage the pages in some section (say mathematics,
geogrpahy,
economics or whatever). This does not mean that any user from outside the team
could not submit modifications. But without a team of core developers or
a project leader for each section how can you assure a minimum of
quality of wikipedia?
Truely Pablo, apart from the wikiproject, this happens quite naturally
in some topics. Most editors have a favorite topic or two. They will in
time have most of the articles on the topic on their watch list. Little
by little, they come to know the other editors who care about these
topics. They know they can trust them, they also know which one are more
likely to express a certain type of bias.
That may not be directly visible, but depending on the person who edited
last a page, an editor will go and check or not. He will no if he can
expect a certain type of edition or not. We watch articles together. And
on these articles that we watch together, there is little chance that
much damage is done and goes unnoticed.
Welcome to the place !