[WikiEN-l] The WSJ likes us!

[Phil Nash]

David Gerard wrote:
>> Rather than comparing a convenient online copy of Wikipedia to a
>> paper copy of Britannica ->0 of their readers have access to, or a
>> deliberately-annoying Britannica website (see
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-December/048231.html
>> and thread), they compared it to the other answers sites on the net,
>> most of which are collaborative.
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122981801892624313.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And this is where we win:

"The key to Wikipedia's success is its army of thousands of volunteers who 
actively polices the site for answers that violate its rules. When Harvard 
Business School professor Andrew McAfee assigned his students to edit 
Wikipedia entries, those who inserted inaccuracies or unsourced facts found 
their edits reversed within minutes."

Not that we're in the business of providing answers as such (i.e. our search 
facility isn't geared to that kind of enquiry), but we do have a committed 
army of volunteers with quite vast watchlists and recent changes patrollers 
(who, to be honest, are unsung and underrated).

RCP aside, the long-term integrity of WP does depend on enough editors 
watching enough articles. The obvious vandals tend to be detected fairly 
quickly; it is the more subtly destructive who tend to represent more of a 
threat- those who, for example, will change the population figure for 
[[Rhode Island]] by a few thousand without citing a source. Easy to revert 
if you're watching it, and require a source, but the downside is that this 
may very well result in incorrect information being presented. Unless you've 
time to check it out personally, which is a demand on resource, you might be 
inclined to let it go.