Comments on: Wikipedia Changes Its Open Editing Policy

By: mark

mark — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:39:41 +0000

i don’t think you can have a truly open editing solution. Am I going out on a limb or what?!

By: Eh Nonymous

Eh Nonymous — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:36:09 +0000

The easy story arc is in fact contradicted in the article itself, which belies both this post title and the article’s thesis.

Wikipedia has always had a short-term, easily solved, bandit problem. Bandits, like many trolls and similar varmints, have no brains and short attention spans.

Wikipedia has managed to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Wikipedia skeptics – meaning critics who pretend they are skeptical, even when their minds are so open to anti-Wikipedianism that their brains fall out – are on the wrong side of history.

By: Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:40:49 +0000

In this blog post, I explain that the New York Times story is false. The idea that we are now becoming more restrictive in our editing policies is exactly backwards. To solve various problems, we are trying to become more open.

This is actually a much more interesting story, but the Times chose to ignore the facts and run with the easy story arc.

By: China Law Blog

China Law Blog — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 03:21:22 +0000

So Wikipedia was getting too many changes to its Chinese human rights section coming from China. Whoops, wait a minute, it’s banned in China.

By: ac

ac — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 02:34:19 +0000

Notably the trusted editors model you propose corresponds closely to how most open source software projects are run. For most projects, anonymous changes are not activated immediately. Instead they are posted to a public discussion list where one of the trusted group can enact the change. It seems to work pretty well.