Wikipedia: The Big Change?
August 25, 2009Jon Brooks Comments Off
This isn’t about the economy, but the potential impact on the Big Daddy of user-generated content is so great the topic is worthy of a post. Wikipedia, founded on the concept that anyone can edit any entry on any topic at any time, has announced an upcoming change in the way it will allow edits to articles about living people to appear online. From the New York Times:
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….
“We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks,” said Michael Snow, a lawyer in Seattle who is the chairman of the Wikimedia board. “There was a time probably when the community was more forgiving of things that were inaccurate or fudged in some fashion — whether simply misunderstood or an author had some ax to grind. There is less tolerance for that sort of problem now.”
The BBC also sees the change as highly signficant, calling it “a radical shift.”
As an example of the extreme dismay the policy change is causing in some quarters, here’s a comment that the Times highlighted:
Along those lines, a freewheeling discussion is currently taking place on Slashdot. Here’s one post that sort of sums up the consternation over the perceived change in the ethos of the site:I cannot believe all this support for the most destructive decision ever made by the Wikipedia team. I am truly horrified. If you want an edited encyclopedia, make a new one. Don’t destroy Wikipedia. Don’t transform its spirit. The point of one of the most creative and impressive structure of the Web is to be organic in nature. Thought must go back and forth. Ideas must be free to emerge, blend, mix and evolve. No this is not a great decision, it is suicidal. I am strongly against this and invite those who share my concerns to be very vocal.
Uhh, isn’t this the way things always work when there’s a user-generated-content scenario?
1) “Hey, our site is Web 2.0 – everyone can contribute!”
2) Massive amount of content mysteriously accumulates
3) Oh wait, we need to put ‘security’ measures in place to prevent bad people doing bad things to our c.. (sorry, your) content.
Some Wikipedians, however, are calling the change less than earth-shattering:
And over at The Wikipedia Review, the topic is not drawing much posting action. Responding to the Times’ assertion that certain revisions will require an experienced Wikipedia editor’s approval, one user writes:Here’s the actual policy draft. The so called “articles about living people” are actually specific heavily vandalized articles that are already eligible for semi-protection, and the “experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia” is any account at least four days old that’s made at least ten edits. Not exactly the epic failure of Wikipedia’s core principles that the mainstream news media would like it to be. It’s heavily ironic that that the NYT is too busy bashing Wikipedia to concern themselves with the facts of the story here.
They seem to be overstating what is actually happening… Contrary to what NYT reports, there is no indication that this will specifically be targeted at BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons). It is apparently intended to be applied using the current guidelines for semi and full protection.
Hmm. So who will write the Wikipedia article about the change in policy? That one should really be one hell of an editing war.
