[WikiEN-l] Re: BusinessWeek article DEFINITELY needs correction

[dpbsmith at verizon.net]

> From: "Peter Jaros" <rjaros at shaysnet.com>
> 
> > http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885044.htm:
> >
> > > WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The
> > > online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd
> > > volunteers covering a huge range of subjects, even though it does
> > > better on science and technology than on arts and culture. Not
> > > surprisingly, the articles are of uneven depth and quality. If you
> > > find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction. And if you
> > > find a topic that isn't covered, you are welcome to create a new
> > > article. (An editorial group decides which corrections and
> > > contributions merit posting.)
> >
> > Uh, who is this "editorial group"?  This wouldn't disturb me so much
> > if I hadn't sent a letter to another columnist recently about almost
> > the same language.  I supposed the WikiWay is just too hard for some
> > people to believe, but who is this "editorial group"?

Christopher Larberg added
> Perhaps a correction letter should be sent to the magazine? We don't want 
> people to get the wrong impression about Wikipedia.

This should definitely be corrected. It's just... totally... wrong. (I'd 
better to log into BusinessWeek right now and fix it. Oh, wait...)

Nobody needs to "suggest" corrections, they can just _make_ them. The 
"editorial group" is everyone, including anons. (Any user can blank an entire 
page or replace it with a redirect. The distinction between doing that and 
deleting a page is very subtle). And the even if the "editorial group" means 
the admins/sysops it's wrong. Sysops don't "decide what merits posting" 
before the fact--no "prior restraint." It acts, if at all, after the fact. 
And it doesn't act as a group--whoever feels like discussing an article 
discusses it. And all decisions are reversible...