Online Encyclopedia Tightens Rules (Wikipedia)

[Ignacio Upton]

By DAN GOODIN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 28 minutes ago

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows anyone to contribute articles, is tightening its rules for submitting entries following the disclosure that it ran a piece falsely implicating a man in the Kennedy assassinations.

Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday.

The change comes less than a week after John Seigenthaler Sr., who was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s, wrote an op-ed article revealing that Wikipedia had run a biography claiming Seigenthaler had been suspected in the assassinations of the former Attorney General and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.>>

<<Wikipedia visitors will still be able to edit content already posted without registering. It takes 15 to 20 seconds to create an account on the Web site, and an e-mail address is not required.

Seigenthaler, a former newspaper editor at the Tennessean in Nashville, Tenn., and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, said that following his op-ed piece in USA Today the biography of him was changed to remove the false accusations.

But Seigenthaler said the current entry on Monday still got some facts wrong, apparently because volunteers are confusing him with his son, John Seigenthaler Jr., a journalist with NBC News.

Also disturbing is a section of his biography that tracks changes made to the article, Seigenthaler, Sr. said. Entries in that history section label him a "Nazi" and say other "really vicious, venomous, salacious homophobic things about me," he said.

Wales said those comments would be removed.

For 132 days, Seigenthaler said the biography of him falsely claimed that "for a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby."

The biography also falsely stated that he had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.>>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_rules

[Ignacio Upton]

1. It's about time as far as I'm concerned

Wikipedia has the potential of being a good site, but too many people with ideological interests, on both the right (and sadly even the left) mess around with it to tailor to their point of view instead of keeping it objective and without bias.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. It's not just politics. People with all kinds of axes to grind are

fighting it out there. For example, the pharmaceutical companies seem to have a group of moles who attempt to propagandize against any non-drug therapeutic interventions.

[Captain Hilts]

4. It's just as bad as the review fights on Amazon.com

Really unreliable.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Amen!

Recently I've seen a lot of "ping-ponging" going on there...an article is "freeped" or redone and then its redone again.

The wiki concept is great when it is confined to a defined universe...say the DU wikipedia...where access and editing is monitored. Unfortunately the open-source concept of information just hasn't overcome that simple little malfunction known as human nature.

Nonetheless, Wikipedia offers an incredible resource on so many topics...it'd be a shame to see one small mess put the crimps on the many non-controversial, yet highly informative articles and topics they cover.

[NuttyFluffers]

19. yup, essentially my thoughts. beautiful in a utopia - this isn't a utopia.

and since this isn't a utopia... oh well, human nature, and evil, and stupidity, and random mischief, and just plain ol' flubs are gonna get through.

pretty much once i found about wiki, after hearing some cite it as something valid and usually letting it slide, i turned 180 degrees and completely ignore the damn thing for anything serious. essentially it's a central site to ask general questions and get any randomized answer... might as well use a regular search engine. i'm a big kid, i know how to do my own research and find reliable resources. hell, with dictionary.com, pharma dictionary online, lexis nexis partly free, and tons of others... there's no real reason for me to waste my time with wiki.

beautiful idea for a perfect world. too bad in this world it's just a waste of time for me.

[Neil Lisst]

20. My first experience with Wikipedia was from political discussions.

Online, message boards, usually some rightwinger using it as a reference. I looked at it in that situation, and I repeatedly concluded that it was absurd as a source. The political matters are almost always peppered with biases and editorializing that are simply not encyclopedic or professional.

[LiberalGuy000]

2. darn!

This means I won't be able to tamper with Representative Jean Schmidt's biography anymore. :cry:

[GrumpyGreg]

5. Damn---that's quite a mistake made by Wikipedia.

[darkism]

6. Requiring registration is antithetical to the wiki concept

Can't people just watch their articles more carefully for vandalism, and revert as necessary?

[sofa king]

7. An example of psyops on Wiki: "The Plame Affair"

That's the agreed upon title for the scandal. What better way to evoke the triviality of the Republican power grab against Bill Clinton?

The sad part about it is, if it really were an affair in the cuckold's sense, someone else probably would be getting impeached. Instead, Karl Rove is laughing all the way to the bank.

[darkism]

9. If you object, you have every right to say that the title is NPOV

...and initiate a discussion.

[darkism]

16. Obviously I meant NOT NPOV.

Oops!

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. Only interesting bit is the "Freedom Forum First Amendment Center"

And the fact that Siegenthaler, the co-founder of this Orwellian-named
project which is building a giant (10-story high) television screen on
Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC,

Posted his "j'accuse" editorial in, of all places, USA Today --

-- the corporate sponsor of the Freedom Forum!!

As for the wiki stuff, not surprising when it's revealed the site is owned by one person. Some small-d democracy.

As for the libel, not surprising or newsworthy...

[Redstone]

10. About fucking time. They'd better make drastic changes soon, or they'll

only be a dim memory five years from now.

A large percentage of their stuff is full of shit, and I'd no sooner use them as an "authoritative source" than I would Fox News.

Redstone

[Psephos]

11. I trust Wikipedia about as much as I trust whitehouse.gov

Everybody who's nobody sees Wikipedia as a chance to have their point of view become "authoritative." Posts and edits are made anonymously. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Peace.

[Neil Lisst]

14. Well said. Star Chamber editing, appoint yourself.

Who would think that might have problems?

Who's in charge? Well, who has lots of time and a need to do work for which they are unqualified?

[LiberalGuy000]

21. whitehouse.com

And I trust whitehouse.com more than I trust whitehouse.gov!

[jim3775]

12. More rules, just what wikipedia needs

More food for the procedure-freaks that run that place.

(although, these rules are probably a good idea)

[quinnox]

13. A bad blow to that online "encyclopedia"

Anyone can edit entries and write what they consider factual articles? Seems this is not a smart way to make a real encyclopedia.

Wikipedia needs a complete overhaul or I agree with others they will turn out to have as much credibility as typical conspiracy websites that are a dime a dozen. Get real credentialed experts and recognized authorities in their field to write the articles, not some random Joe Blow on the internet.

[Neil Lisst]

15. You and I agree 100% on this issue.

SOMEONE is raking in the dough on that site, and I suspect I know who it is. By not spending ANY money running it, he has a site that attracts graffiti.

People get doctorates and then work in their fields for years so they can become authorities and write with authority about the topics they cover.

[ErisFiveFingers]

17. This will change zip, zilch, and nothing.

As a wikipedian with a 250+ article watchlist, I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs. All this will prevent is some unknown guy *starting* an article with bad data.

It'll still be perfectly possible to "start" the article with one valid account, and pile a ton of crap into the article from anonymous IP's.