Wikipedia’s New Rules Don’t Go Far Enough

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Задумались о презентах на ДР сыну, ему 4 года, различные-пылесборники-конструкторы у него есть предостаточно, он любитмышку Тич. Я выискала типа такой игрушки, только медведя -медвежонок Куби, кто покупал такого? Стоит покупать? Или порекомендуйте что-нибудь еще. Не дайте ребенку остаться без подарочка от родителей.

EugeneYY of AL 2:21AM March 10, 2010

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.

Jon of NH 11:35AM August 30, 2009

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.

MIT of GA 7:10PM August 26, 2009

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.

Diogenes of NY 11:16PM August 25, 2009

If you want an experiment in wiki biography subjects having complete control over their pages, you might want to check out MyWikiBiz.com.
Specifically, check out the pages about Liz Cohen and about Rachel Marsden. Neither of them were getting very hospitable treatment on Wikipedia. Now, they have their wiki biographies the way they wish to have them -- and outstanding Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search results, too.

Gregory Kohs of PA 9:47PM August 25, 2009

Thank God. Wikipedia's new rules will help prevent the all-to-common problem of Johnny turning in a paper to his 4th grade teacher only to discover that not everything on the internet is true. When I was a kid, we went door to door selling a quality encyclopedia called Encyclopedia Britannica. You could trust that, but you had to go to a library. Today’s kids can come up with the stupidest concepts of reality in part because they are too lazy to go beyond google/wikipedia and the people who have the time to post to Wikipedia usually are unemployed liberal idiots.

J Taylor of MD 8:57PM August 25, 2009

The New York Times article is misleading. The "new rules" Wikipedia is implementing aren't nearly as strong as they're implying. I've been following the debate over this feature—the planned changes do not go nearly as far as you might think. Only articles which already justify protection will see much of a change, and that mainly to let more people edit.
I wrote a whole blog post as a primer on the issue, and to save duplicating it here, I'll just point you to it:
http://nihiltres.blogspot.com/2009/08/flagged-revisions-confusing-development.html

Nihiltres 8:29PM August 25, 2009

Wikipedia does not exist to be a place for "living persons" to run scripted image ads about themselves for free and in perpetuity. It exists to be a user-generated encyclopedia.
Having posts flagged for review? Fine.
Having non-libel posts eliminated by request of another? Not fine.

Muser of NM 4:35PM August 25, 2009