Wikipedia Makes News

It is a natural evolution for Wikipedia, and I really don't think that it is such a big deal. Anyone can still create an account and login, if they want to start a new article. Anonymous users can still edit existing entries.

Requiring a login just adds a level of accountability that will eliminate spam and make the lives of volunteer wiki editors easier.

Of course, the bulk of society is good, decent and honest. But, because not 100 percent of the public is good, decent and honest, we have laws and law enforcement.

Wikipedia is simply the Web or informational version of a society without law enforcement. It relies on vigilantes. There will always be problems with anything wiki, especially when there is no guidance or assigned watchful eye.

-- Mike

I fully agree with Adam.All guests can create account,but without account they must can only read article and write comments. It clean all spam from blog,i think.Fix me if i'm not right.Thanks.

Looks like the mainstream press -- AP -- picked up on the Wikipedia issue.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_rules

Mike

Hey Mike,

Thanks for the pointer.

It shouldn't help much - you can still create an account anonomously.

Wikipedia should never be considered trustworthy.

I guess I do wonder as well whether that will be enough. It still leaves open any kind of editing on existing articles.

Adam doesn't seem to understand how Wikipedia works - and Heather is correct. Anyone anonymous can still change anything they like on the site, so it's just as unaccountable as before.
The Wikipedians seem to have learned nothing from this episode.

This article shows how Jimmy Wales edits his own biography like Adam Curry did last week: Who owns your Wikipedia bio? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/

Well, considering that the Wiki content is provided by a large colloboration of users from across the world who have the power to edit, change and even abuse the content. Can we honestly say that wikipedia is without flaw an accurate source of information for scholors and learners everywhere. Infact, many people are even mislead to beleive that the content is all verified and just. Isn't it time we bring light to the misconception out there and hold wikipedia accountable for the accuracy of the content provided?

Please feel free to read my article for further analysis of this revolutionary information portal: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable-source-for-accurate-content/

Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.

For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter 'Scientific Discovery'. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's' opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.

Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland

I notice that Dr. Hill has spammed over 20 blogs with this comment, but I figured that I should respond anyway. :)

For some reason, it appears that Dr. Hill believes that if he provides the Wikimedia Foundation with money, then his charity will be automatically guaranteed a spot on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that this is not the case. While I have nothing personally against World Innovation Foundation Charity, Wikipedia's neutrality and impartiality is very important.

I have reviewed the original article. There are absolutely no references in the final revision before it was deleted. The main reason that it was deleted was because we didn't believe that the organisation was notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. This was done through articles for deletion - I will let the reader judge whether this was a fair process. I should also note that if someone believes and can demonstrate that they are notable, then there is a deletion review process.

Dr. Hill should also be aware of our suggested guidelines that deal with potential conflicts of interest. Though it isn't prohibited on Wikipedia, it is clearly a conflict of interest to write about your own organisation. It is thus frowned upon. I think that given the goals of Wikipedia, this is pretty reasonable.

Personally, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors or the Wikimedia Foundation has anything against this charity. In my dealings with Wikipedia and the WMF, I have always found that they welcome contructive dialogue with organisations and individuals.

Chris Sherlock
User:Ta bu shi da yu
English Wikipedia Administrator (writing in personal capacity)