ATS: Wikipedia stops Anonymous, page 1

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:19 AM

link

Anonymous submissions and editing, as a much debated topic concerning Wikipedia's operations, has finaly been shown in the way the people against it percieved it.

It was viewed by many that anonymous submissions and editing of content on a site like Wikipedia would lead to disinformation being seeded into the information pool so many people have come to rely on, either as a research or general knowledge resource.

www.guardian.co.uk
The online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been forced to change the way it operates after claims it had become a breeding ground for "false and malicious" information. After a week of blunders, the operators of the site - which allows anyone to write and edit articles - are banning anonymous changes and requiring contributors to register.
"Just recently we've instituted changes," said Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder. These would give the site's 600 volunteer editors a better chance of catching and removing offensive material. "The idea is basically to slow down the pace of new page creation."

The furore began last week when a journalist, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to the former US attorney general Robert Kennedy, attacked Wikipedia in a scathing editorial in the newspaper USA Today. He was angered by an entry insinuating he had been involved in political killings. "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother, Bobby," said the unedited biography. "Nothing was ever proven."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This step by wikipedia was much expected since more and more deliberate or missinformed errors were being found in the content.

Be it conspiracy theorists spreading what they believe to be true eventhough they lack evidence, or people from goverments and agency's spreading disinformation and information to cover up facts, the abuse was aparent and showing more every day.

Wikipedia made a wise decision with this, it might stunt their growth a bit, but if this results in a free, clean and true information resource for all to use, it will be good for bussines and good for everyone.

[edit on 8/12/05 by thematrix]

SkepticOverlord

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:24 AM

link

This won't stop. Pleople will simply create accounts through proxies and other means, then continue posting disinformation and promotional puke.

The Wiki was a good idea for about three hours... then people started posting to it.

thematrix

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:28 AM

link

Yeah, agreeage there SO.
At least this will make it a lil bit harder and slower to do so though.

The final step to this should be that no submissions get passed into the information pool without it being checked and double checked by the editors.

The thing that'll be hard to fix though, is that the information thats already there should be reviewed entirely, which I guess will take a bit more then the 600 editors they have.

At least its a step in the right direction.

Indy

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:09 AM

link

Part of the problem is that people posting on the site are also stealing content from other sites to post on there. They basically take an entire story, change a few little details and call it their own. I know of a case where this has happened. As far as I am concerned they are nothing more than a collection of other people's work. I suspect most of it used without permission. I'd like to see people crack down on stolen work. But I think thats part of this whole anonymous thing in the first place (when it started) is so that Wiki could claim innocence. Or should I say they could pretend to be ignorant to the situation while making money off of it.

yeahright

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:14 AM

link

I'm not sure how they're making money off of it.

I still like wikipedia. I think it's an excellent place to start investigating a topic you have limited knowledge of, especially if you have a need "on the fly". If nothing else, the list of external links and references at the bottom of an article can point you in a direction you may have not have otherwise considered.

AceOfBase

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:29 AM

link

This is good news.
I've had to edit a few articles on Wiki because of childish vandalism (such as inserting profanity into articles) and incorrect information.

This wont stop all of it but it should make it a bit better as people now have to go through another couple of steps instead of just hitting the edit button.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by AceOfBase]

EnronOutrunHomerun

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:40 AM

link

It seems this is just one more loop for these professional nobodies to jump through to complete their mission...

If you've got people hacking gov't sites, what method of deterrence is this supposed to be against your average Joe Blow slandering whomever they feel like taking on any given day?

At some point you have to stop - analyze what kind of service it is your supposed to be providing - then take your method of delivery seriously, or don't follow through with it at all...

Wiki has the potential to be a valuable resource, but its primary weakness is that it lets everyone else do all the work....

sardion2000

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:46 AM

link

Wikipedia is also starting a peer-review and copyright validation vetting and using the lock-article feature much more liberally(like when an Article gets the Thumbs up from both the Peer-Reviewers and the Copyright checkers)

Odium

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:01 PM

link

I really used to like Wikipedia a few years ago, I was writing article after article for the place in my free time and using it as a great source of information and this is when I began to notice. Many of the pages, I would write would later be edited with false information - hidden in the data itself and it made it look 'right'.

It is such a good idea and I think it is something we need, however it needs to be written by members and those who do such acts need to be banned and the ISP needs to be contacted, so they can be fully banned.

Seekerof

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:07 PM

link

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The Wiki was a good idea for about three hours... then people started posting to it.

Agreed, SO.
I do think that this is one small step in the right direction for Wiki.
This matter does elevate the problem of source credibility, and as such, raises the question for a multitude of information sources.

seekerof

Umbrax

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:08 PM

link

I like Wikipedia for little things like reference for TV shows and stuff of that nature. When it comes to "Denying Ignorance" on ATS it is a different story. When you need to deal with hard facts Wikipedia is not reliable.

As it has been said...

If you Deny Ignorance...then don't Wiki

Freedom_for_sum

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:23 PM

link

Well; I edited a wikipedia page a couple months ago and just went there today to see if it still showed my addition. It did. Not only that, but I was able to edit it today to correct a grammar issue. So I don't know what they changed.

alternateheaven

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:37 PM

link

Its human input and its on the internet, honestly I don't see what makes it any more different than forums such as ATS. Other than here we have comments in individual posts as opposed to an article format where you cannot see who added what (unless of course they obviously note it, but even that is suspect) but the fact remains its all about the users and how they choose to use the platform. Honestly if you want hard facts then unplug your computer right now and hit up the library, its about as close to what people seem to be after.

I think the big hoopla over the editing and such is just because people have been lulled into believing they can actually trust what they read on the internet, which really shows how well accepted it has become. Anybody can put up a site, start a blog, add a wiki, hack and deface sites to inject crap, etc so why are people acting like its some huge thing that you can't trust Wiki to have the right information?

think2much

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:11 PM

link

because people have been lulled into believing they can actually trust what they read on the internet, which really shows how well accepted it has become. Anybody can put up a site, start a blog, add a wiki, hack and deface sites to inject crap, etc so why are people acting like its some huge thing that you can't trust Wiki to have the right information?

Yeah that summed it up so well for me it was worth repeating...who would trust anything to be accurate anyway?

...I mean hell, they still have Spud listed as the bassist for Dayglo Abortions for cryin out loud!

The Wiki was a good idea for about three hours... then people started posting to it.

ANd with that I'll just say ITA and LOL

It is a GOOD place to grab some quick basic generic info for reference... or for an appetizer

oh and it's still as easy to edit there as it just was to add this via edit

[edit on 8-12-2005 by think2much]

shots

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:27 PM

link

This change is long over due, however I doubt it will be possible to catch all the intentional misinformation some want to post.

That is one of the reasons I try and avoid using it although I do know one member of ATS says it is creditable

djohnsto77

posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:23 PM

link

The Wikipedia prankster has been uncovered:

It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with the joker losing his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering a blow to its credibility.

A man in Nashville has admitted that, in trying to shock a colleague with a joke, he put false information into a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville.

Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Mr. Seigenthaler on Friday that he had written the material suggesting that Mr. Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. Wikipedia, a nonprofit venture that is the world's biggest encyclopedia, is written and edited by thousands of volunteers.

The New York Times

[edit on 12/11/2005 by djohnsto77]