[Foundation-l] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news story originating from Wikipedia?
robert_horning at netzero.net
Fri Mar 30 00:37:18 UTC 2007
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Robert Brockway <rbrockway at opentrend.net> wrote:
>> While I do agree with this point, an MP making a statement in parliament
>> should be double checking all facts (don't they have staff to do this?).
>> Verification from a primary source (ie, LSE) should have been sought.
>> I'll point out that IMHO anon edits do more harm to WP than good. If
>> people care about the project let them create an account - it takes
>> perhaps 30 seconds?
> We've never demonstrated that turning off anon-page creation made a
> substantial improvement on enwiki... I wouldn't make claims like yours
> without seeing it.
> Think of it this way, if you see a little error you'd like to correct,
> why would you also want to jump through a login hoop.. after all
> you're doing US a favor.
> If instead you'd like to put in some amusing piece of vandalism, you'd
> probably jump through a dozen hoops to pull it off. Some crackers will
> spend weeks of work sometimes to deface a single webpage...
> In any case, the harm caused by vandalism itself is very minor. The
> harm caused by our current practice of always instantly distributing
> anonymous edits to the entire world, is what is actually of concern.
I have wondered if it might be something useful for some of our projects
to have a "published" page that would be a snapshot of the regular page
that most of the people who have worked on and tried to develop the
content on that page could say is slightly more authoritative than the
general "draft" page. I'm not talking anything fancy here, but perhaps
something like a "publish" tab for an admin or other trusted user that
would create a permalink to the current version of the page. The
"draft" page would still be editable as normal, and it would be
considered pro forma for users to request a particular page to get this
published status. Perhaps something on the talk pages for more
controversial content like the George W. Bush article, where the active
content developers would decide what version is more or less ready for
prime time and free of most vandalism.
While this is something that could be gamed by vandals, I think it would
be quite a bit harder to produce some of the raw garbage such as what
was added to this article about Robert Mugabe. At the very least,
articles that generally aren't watched (or seldom watched) would have a
stable version that wouldn't necessarily require constant vigilance by
the vandalism patrol to keep them current. And you could diff the draft
from the published article to help spot some of the vandals like this
individual and the one that massacred the Siegenthaler article as well.
Certainly something needs to happen here, as like it or not, Wikipedia
is being taken much more seriously than it was a few years ago. I know
the Wikipedia 1.0 crew is trying other methods to come up with quality
articles to showcase, but more could be done. And we have to somehow
balance the need to expand the user base for Wikimedia projects with
trying to come up with quality content.
Allowing anon editing is merely one tool to try and encourage new people
to come in and join our projects. The more steps they have to go
through in order to become considered full members of our community, the
harder it will be to get people to help us out.
-- Robert Horning
More information about the foundation-l