Wikipedia: No longer the Wild West?

CNN ^ | 8/26/09 | CNN

[PhxRising]

Today's Internet is governed by the idea that crowds of people can create the news, share information and collaborate on online projects.

So when Wikipedia, the user-written encyclopedia that's built an empire on this ideal, decided this week to add a layer of oversight to its system, the Web erupted in debate.

The popular encyclopedia, which has drawn criticism for inaccuracies, says it will try assigning editors to some of its entries. These trusted volunteers likely would have to approve public edits before they're published to English-language stories about living people.

Some see the move as a shift away from Wikipedia's core values and a sign that crowds of people aren't able to produce a usable and accurate body of information.

[PhxRising]

I guess time will tell if having someone review Wikipedia edits will be a good thing or censorship.

[OldDeckHand]

I guess time will tell if having someone review Wikipedia edits will be a good thing or censorship."

Methinks you'll have to wait a VERY short period of time before determining that it's actually liberal/leftist censorship.

I don't trust ANY organization that intentionally doesn't have a profit motive to give conservatism a fair shake. In a few short weeks, Wikipedia will be (even more than it is now) and in-kind contribution to the DNC and leftist groups everywhere.

[GonzoGOP]

Translated: Nothing bad about Obama will be allowed. Nothing good about Sarah Palin will be allowed.

[angkor]

Despite its flaws, I like Wikipedia and have contributed time and $$$ to the effort.

[muawiyah]

Dogs do this ~ the whole pack is baying after the female in heat but it's still one dog at a time ~ first one, then another, then another.

Having an editor for a dog pack will not change the fact of what it is.

[James smithy]

I think Wikipedia is doing a great job in providing the accurate information ,its one of the most reliable source of information on web

[BGHater]

No different than FR. Everyone censors, to prove a point or bias. It is their site and can do whatever they want.

[Retired Greyhound]

I like Wikipedia, but always take it with a grain of salt.

I don’t favor editing.

[GeronL]

Wikipedia os only good for casual use, not for serious research.

Its an auto fail if cited on a college paper as a source

[GeronL]

I think Wikipedia is doing a great job in providing the accurate information ,its one of the most reliable source of information on web

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[gorilla_warrior]

Wikipedia has been censoring from day one. Facts are facts, but any non-leftwing opinion is relentlessly deleted. A fact-driven topic like the Battle of Chattanooga will be fairly reliable. Where there is an opportunity to inject opinion, it will be censored if it does not comply with leftwing political correctness standards, arbitrarily defined by unseen gremlins. Largely opinionated pieces like the biography of Hillary Clinton will be a total puff piece joke.

[ExGeeEye]

Last time I checked, these "birther"-related items were still present in the artcle on Sun Yat-Sen:

Waiting for some Obamabot to scrub it.

[Melas]

That’s not really a slam against Wiki. When I was in college anyway, any and all citations of encyclopedias were verboten.