Wikipedia tests edit moderation

By Justin Mann on January 26, 2009, 1:44 PM
If you ever needed to argue about what the most powerful aspect of Wikipedia is, you'd probably cite the ability for anyone to edit it. The anonymous editing with relatively few restrictions has helped make the site a worldwide success. Above all, the greatest strength of Wikipedia is its users. Does the strength need to be curbed? Some of the people responsible for maintaining Wikipedia think so, and are considering limiting anonymous editing on the site.

The reasons are obvious. They want to avoid situations in which false or misleading information is posted by anonymous users, whether due to malicious intent or not. The new editorial process, currently in pilot through the German Wikipedia site, would queue edits for approval by a trusted editor. This system would still allow anyone to submit an edit, even anonymously, but it would require approval before it would actually be posted. “Trusted” editors would be able to submit content instantly.

There are of course flaws to that system. It can take days or even weeks before a change is approved, which can be a big concern when you have multiple people contributing to an article. Then you also have the issue of the sheer number of edits overwhelming those who approve the edits. Because of that, Wikipedia is asking for input for other solutions. Ultimately this boils down to a lack of trust. If Wikipedia wants to become a more trustworthy source of information, one that people can rely upon, it'll need some sort of sanity checking system in place. Can they accomplish this through moderation, or is a more complex solution needed?




User Comments: 1

Got something to say? Post a comment
captain828 said:
IMHO, it's great as it is.I've rarely found inaccurate information on Wikipedia of what I was searching... and I've been using it on a day-by-day basis for quite a while.I've also found the mods very active and efficient at sorting out ambiguations.What they're doing with the trusted editors thing is rely on something that is free. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't do that... after all, you don't know when that trusted editor has time to get to the matters at hand, and if I remember well, the Wikimedia foundation has very few paid, dedicated, people on the job.Their aim with Wikipedia is to make the ultimate encyclopedia; they would require a HUGE modding work force for such a task. So unless someone properly finances them, which I utterly doubt, their best bet is to continue with their current (IMO, successful) plan.Also, we *meatbags* have done the same thing in regards to justice: the judges use the law(s) to "moderate" us for doing bad things, but given the fact that they are men... they can be corrupted.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.