Problems for Wikipedia

[Becky]

Wikipedia, the 'free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit' has been having a few problems recently. The main issue with allowing people to edit and create new encyclopedia entries is a matter of accuracy, and that is exactly the case here.

Wikipedia works as follows: people add/edit their own entries, and 'new-age patrollers' verify their content. Unfortunately, it is possible for new pages to be overlooked, and so mistakes can exist, and be viewable to the public, without detection. When anonymous users create pages containing false or biased information, there is no-one to hold accountable.

A page was recently found in Wikipedia, penned by an anonymous user, claiming that former-aid to Present Kennedy, John Seigenthaler, was a suspect for the assination of both Presendent John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert F. Kennedy. The page was online, uncorrected and available for all to read for 132 days.

As a result of this drastic mistake, owner and founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, has changed the rules so that only registered users can create pages.

Read more about this at C Net, BetaNews, AnandTech and ARS Technica

 

[floppybootstomp]

I'm surprised it lasted this long before idiots started to make entries.

It was founded on trust and has done remarkably well, considering.

I have noticed not so much innacuracies, but things I've disagreed with in Wikipedia, so I wouldn't take everything in there as absolute truth.

However, an interesting concept and a valuable source of information.

 

[Raje]

As a result of this drastic mistake, owner and founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, has changed the rules so that only registered users can create pages.
Read more about this at C Net, BetaNews, AnandTech and ARS Technica

As is should have been from the beginning...

 

[kingnathski88]

I dont think it should ever of been allowed like that, i use it alot though for all my asignments and coursework

 

[Quadophile]

Good news for those who frequently visit the Wikipedia website

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html

 

[floppybootstomp]

I read that yesterday Quad. Amazing that facts volunteered and written by the general public should be almost on a par with a long established respectable publication.

Good stuff

 

[Quadophile]

I always respected Britannica and still do, but to know that Wikipedia is not that far behind was really an eye-opener for me.