Wikipedia’s New Rules Don’t Go Far Enough
By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Go Wikipedia, go! But go even farther than today's news suggests. Finally, the wild West-like, Web-based encyclopedia is reining in some Internet cowboys. I take it as a pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless. It means at the very least that I'm hardly alone in having dealt with Web-lurkers who take aspects of one's bio that are not major markers of one's accomplishments and turn them into signature events in that person's life.
From the New York Times:
Officials at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit in San Francisco that governs Wikipedia, say that within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on articles about living people.
The new feature, called "flagged revisions," will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia's servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version.
Having been through this with a Wikipedia editor, changes made by others are no joyride. The editor with whom I dealt, whose real name I do not know, was highly professional. But the rules that still govern Wiki biographical information make it difficult for anyone to control what the 10th most-popular Web site disseminates regarding one's bio.
Essentially, if there's a link to a Web post anywhere, even one you posted yourself, until these changes were put into effect, any "lurker" could link your bio page to that post, distort its meaning, and take control of your mini Web bio. Thank you, Wikipedia, for realizing the need to change the current set-up. Now, please consider changing the rules a bit further, so living persons have complete control over what is posted on their bio pages.
- Check out our political cartoons.
- Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.
- On Facebook? Become a fan of the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (7) | Print
Reader Comments
what?
If the person has complete control of their bio it is going to be incredibly biased. That is the most ridiculous demand I've ever heard anyone make of wikipedia. If that happened all the information would be utterly worthless.
It is great that there is some editorial control, but you are asking too much.
You would be
you probably use wikipedia for your post references.
you really care what your bio on wikipedia says when anyone can make an entire website based on you and put whatever they want?
Just because someone says something about you that you don't like doesn't make it false.
A truly ugly scene
Any psychopath or group or psychopaths with time on their hands and a knowledge of the maze-like system that is wikipedia can attack and destroy any article at any time (with the exception of those that are specially protected.)
The "Discussion" areas where rationales for edits are hashed over are often characterized by capriciousness, undisguised personal animosity towards bio subjects, epic stupidity and even bullying.
The two groups most often involved in this behavior are right wing Americans seeking opportunities to "punish' individuals with opinions different from theirs and anti-cult fanatic who want to "out" every misdeed real and imagined of anyone they deem is involved in a cult.
Open an account and click the Discussion link on the top of some of the bios and you can see for yourself. It's pretty appalling what's going on behind the scenes - and much of the misconduct emanates from by experienced, "accredited" wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia needs to lock down all bios of living people, train editors specifically to deal with these articles, and aggressively seek out the vandals and ban them from the system.
Right now anyone who can spout a few "wikipedisms" to justify their self-justify their behavior and find one or two fellow psychopaths to agree with him can run amok at will.
advertisement
