Here an english version of the story:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm

JoaoMiranda

On 12/15/05, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it 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 .....

considering that Encyclopedia Britannica is 237 years old and Wikipedia only 5 .... hmmmmm ....

(sorry I don't have time to translate this article - maybe there's an English one around as well???)

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).

Ciao, Sabine

---

Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l