Wikipedia To Unlock Frequently Vandalized Pages

netbuzz writes "In an effort to encourage greater participation, Wikipedia, the self-described 'online encyclopedia that anyone can edit,' is turning to tighter editorial control as a substitute for simply 'locking' those entries that frequently attract mischief makers and ideologues. The new system, which will apply to a maximum of 2,000 most-vulnerable pages, is sure to create controversies of its own."

Re:Which pages?

[Meshach]

There is a list on the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Queue [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hypocrisy

[FooAtWFU]

Neutral is identifying the men (or newspapers or whatever) who are stating the "facts", and stating that they are stating those facts, without stating that they're right. (The fight then becomes "whose opinions do we bother to list here, and whose are irrelevant?" and that's usually quite a bit less controversial. not controversy-free, but less controversial.)

Re:Hypocrisy

[Darkness404]

There are a -lot- of problem page editors on the weirdest articles. If you are an anonymous contributor, chances are that your edits will be reverted without someone even looking at them. Heck, even citations are reverted because they "look suspicious". I used to contribute some to Wikipedia whenever I saw an error, however, there has been too many times that my edits have been reverted without anyone looking at them or reading them. Even simple things like correcting spelling mistakes all too often get reverted.

Re:Hypocrisy

[FooAtWFU]

If you can't define 'Neutral', just look it up [wikipedia.org]. Duh.

I'll save you a click: For Neutral Point of View on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:NPOV [wikipedia.org].

Re:Hypocrisy

[DaveV1.0]

They don't have a neutral point-of-view. They are promulgating their point of view and squashing any dissenting opinions.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Moryath]

Wikipedia's approach isn't even close to an "honest attempt", however. The methods by which their administrator clique treats outsiders are ridiculously jackbooted; organized groups have been able to get a few admins in place [livejournal.com] and then simply use them to run roughshod over anyone who comes in in good faith to try to repair the damage done by partisans taking over articles.

There was a kerfluffle a few years ago when an organized Arab group went nuts trying to remove the Hebrew translations of certain regional (common to both Israel, Syria, Lebanon, etc) dishes like Za'atar and Felafel. The end result was the bannings of anyone who tried to defend it, on behest of the organized crew. Just one example, but a common theme. When the various organized groups (the "Shi'a Guild", etc) who were organizing to POV various articles on wikipedia were told "not in public", they didn't vanish, they just moved to outside forums like soundvision.com and started organizing from there.

And who can forget the various scandals like the Durova's Hit-List Scandal [theregister.co.uk]?

Or the time they altered the rules so that an administrator can call someone a "sockpuppet" at any time, and NO amount of proof - not even a "checkuser", because they changed the rules so that "checkuser" can ONLY establish guilt, not innnocence - can ever clear their name?

The phrase "honest attempt" should not be used in conjunction with Wikipedia. The whole way the system's set up is just corrupt, top to bottom.

Re:Oh really? Then...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Begging the question" doesn't mean [wikipedia.org] what you think it means.

...Unless you go in and change it to mean what you think you mean.

Re:Hypocrisy

[drinkypoo]

Wikipedia's neutrality policy and its style isn't really just to have two sides on a matter write a paragraph of propaganda and hope it balances out. It's to write an article whose accuracy is impeccably true by discussing the opponents and proponents in the controversy in a factual way.

If you want the two sides thing, go to Everything2, which is generally happy not to delete any article that isn't too rude and doesn't seem to be total bullshit. Some topics (titles, really) are locked and you can't add anything to them.

Re:Tools have improved for vandalism, screening wo

[imthesponge]

People have been blacklisted from using Twinkle after misusing it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AzaToth/morebits.js [wikipedia.org] ("twinkleBlacklistedUsers" near end of page)

Re:Oh really? Then...

[mea37]

When a group and/or point of view is so irrefutably evil, report the facts as they are and everyone observing the facts will see that they are evil. If you instead take the road you're advocating, and insist that all anyone get to see about them is your emotional reaction, then you're insisting that everyone else "take your word for it" that they are evil. That will only breed sympathy for them.

There is a difference between neutral reporting and neutral action. Civilization depends on seeing that distinction, so it's a shame people like you don't.