Premature obituaries may force new Wikipedia rules
Online encyclopedia may vet entries after falsely reporting senators' deaths
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Entries on the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia may have to be pre-approved after it wrongly claimed that Senator Edward Kennedy had died.
The user-generated site, in which members of the public are encouraged to provide the entries, is to review the rules governing contributions. It could lead to entries being centrally approved before being published, which would constitute a radical overhaul of the site's operations.
Calls for a review followed the embarrassing revelation that pages on Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Edward Kennedy, two prominent American politicians, falsely gave the impression that each had died.
Senator Kennedy, who is severely ill with a malignant brain tumour, went into convulsions during an inaugural lunch for President Barack Obama in Washington on 20 January. But his entry on the site wrongly stated that he had died: "Kennedy suffered a seizure at a luncheon following the Barack Obama presidential inauguration on 20 January 2009. He was removed in a wheelchair, and died shortly after." News reports said later that, according to his doctors, he was suffering from fatigue.
A similar error was made on the entry for Senator Byrd.
Both mistakes were corrected within minutes, but its founder, Jimmy Wales, now wants a new or unknown user's changes to be approved by an editor; some editors say that process would create "backlogs that we will be unable to manage".
Mr Wales's proposal, of flagged revisions, has been in place on the German Wikipedia site for almost a year, but critics complain that the labour-intensive process undermines the site's reputation for speed.
"This nonsense would have been 100 per cent prevented by flagged revisions," Mr Wales wrote on a user talk page. "It could also have been prevented by protection or semi-protection, but ... this was a breaking news story and we want people to be able to participate (so protection is out) and even to participate in good faith for the first time ever (so semi-protection is out)." He said a poll showed that 60 per cent of users supported a trial of that scheme.
But there was soon a storm of responses from other editors. "Kowtowing to bad press seems wrong-headed to me," one said. "Our future depends on those ignorant of Wikipedia's potential stumbling on an article, fixing it, and getting hooked. Flagged Revs throw a wrench into that process." Mr Wales asked those opposed to the changes to make "an alternative proposal within seven days, to be voted upon 14 days after that".
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/miscon
isn't that an important role for professional scientists, is it not just the case that your spurious claims regarding the rock samples from Boggy Creek in Texas proving that the Moon landings did not take place were removed because they are not factual, maybe this proves that as an ongoing project Wikipedia works especially as it removes non factual information such as yours.
"I used to post factual information on WIKIPEDIA and noticed that my information was being manipulated and deleted by certain professional scientists as part of a greater effort to control and undermine the scientific record."
My point regarding your website is that you deny the moon landings "plural" not that you deny the first.
Proof requires empirical evidence and peer review, your postings obviousley did not meet the generally high standards the Wikipedia community set themselves. The article you responded to tackled a genuine issue i.e. how accurate can a community edited resource be! Your reply to it and your subsequent reply to mine seem to prove to me that Wikipedia can be a reliable source if the community spots inaccurate or misleading information quickly enough.
Wikipedia is not perfect but as long as long as genuinly proven facts and accurate historical data is placed on the site and checked by the community it will build to be a useful free resource, if people like yourself manage to fill it with conspiracy theories and non peer reviewed unverifiable claims it will collaps and be worthless.
You write: My point regarding your website is that you deny the moon landings "plural" not that you deny the first.
I write: Your statement doesn't make any sense. Go back and re-read the page. I said "we found substantial valid evidence to show the first lunar landing took place but evidence of subsequent landings is scant, flimsy or nonexistent". Your misrepresenting my statements in that regard.
You write: Proof requires empirical evidence and peer review, your postings obviously did not meet the generally high standards of the Wikipedia community set themselves.
I write: It depends on what you're trying to prove. Not everything requires peer review. This is proven by the fact that our links were deleted and the abuser Randy Korotev, a scientist from Washington University in St. Louis issued an apology for taking cheap censorship shots. We met the burden of proof and the emailed apology from Dr. Korotev is evidence of that. He was not motivated by scientific accuracy. He was put up to it as part of a broader program of censorship implemented, funded, and coordinated by administrators from NASA. This is a proven fact.
You write: snip.. if people like yourself manage to fill it with conspiracy theories and non peer reviewed unverifiable claims it will collapse and be worthless.
I write: You are again playing hard and loose with the facts. I never placed any conspiracy theories or non-factual information on Wikipedia. While I find you questions, interesting and compelling, and appreciate all input and inquiries into our research and activities, it's best you arm yourself with the facts before jumping into a debate. Next time you should try elucidating yourself with the facts before embarrassing yourself in front of the world.
If you want I can post the email apology by the government funded censor. It would be proof positive that Wikipedia is a complete scam taken over by fraudulent scientists whose only concern is that the record be viewed through their narrow lens.
Pay attention to what you wrote on your reply. You imply that Wikipedia is near perfect since it's shock full or peer reviewers and empirical evidence. But then you qualify what you just said by saying, "it's not perfect".... All of which proves my point(s).
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/miscon
Strom Thurmond was dead for 28 years before the main stream media actually reported it!
Do we need speed or accuracy for checking reference information?!
By the way, since when Wikipedia has become a news broadcasting agency?
NB: and for attention of Wikipedia Encyclopedia management team, please make sure that qualified people are editing the materials used on the site, and well done with your good work.