Wikipedia | The Coffeehouse

GoddersUK
I CAN has cheezburger and you CAN'T has stop me!

Linkage

They're taking away what makes it special Sad

They're destroying the whole philosophy of it Sad

They MUST be stopped.

Lloyd_Humph
If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.

GoddersUK wrote:

They MUST be stopped.

By Force!

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

GoddersUK wrote:
Linkage

They're taking away what makes it special

They're destroying the whole philosophy of it

They MUST be stopped.

They should try a meta-moderator system like in Slashcode (as used by Slashdot). Basically other people are invited to meta-moderate other people's moderations of contributions.

This could be extended by only allowing people who meta-moderate enough to submit contributions (and the more you meta-moderate, the more you can contribute).

The trials are fine for the DE version of the site since the German version is much smaller, I don't think it'll scale well for the English version.

But I guess this means it sort-of loses it's "wiki" status.

JohnnyAwesome
Eggshell with Romalian type. What do you think?

W3bbo wrote:
But I guess this means it sort-of loses it's "wiki" status.

100 percent accurate. When a friends younger sister (who is a freshman in college) inquired if she could use Wikipedia as a source on a paper w few years ago; I knew it was the beginning of the end.

When enough people start treating it as a resource or an actual encyclopedia, they're also going to demand accuracy. If it is locked down to a select group of super-users I think other sites will follow suit. Then what does "Web 2.0" really stand for?

[some] User generated content.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

JohnnyAwesome wrote:

W3bbo wrote:But I guess this means it sort-of loses it's "wiki" status.

100 percent accurate. When a friends younger sister (who is a freshman in college) inquired if she could use Wikipedia as a source on a paper w few years ago; I knew it was the beginning of the end.

You're not meant to cite any encyclopedias anyway (not even Britannica), they're all second-hand sources. You can, however, cite WikiSource (which is meant for this sort of thing).

JohnnyAwesome wrote:
Then what does "Web 2.0" really stand for?

[some] User generated content.

No, it's Web 2.1, the point-release fixes "critical bugs" with the addition of the G.I.F.T. patch.

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

step 1: start to monitor the moderators
step 2: include 'google type' text ads
step 3: hire dead-tree encyclopedia writers

bye-bye britannica and any others.

Wikipedia was a cute idea, and I'll bet that someone else will take the time to set up another truly open version, but we really do need a place to go for information that has some kind of vetting.

Web search just doesn't cut it.

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

Its not as bad as it sounds:

"These trusted editors will have to have proved their commitment to Wikipedia by posting 30 reliable changes within 30 days."

Which means anyone can be pushed into the 'editor' class if they post a lot of good edits

cheong

brian.shapiro wrote:
Its not as bad as it sounds:

"These trusted editors will have to have proved their commitment to Wikipedia by posting 30 reliable changes within 30 days."

Which means anyone can be pushed into the 'editor' class if they post a lot of good edits

That means if you have first hand experience on certain subject but you don't have other things to say, even if what you're trying to post is of valuable value, you still can't post it directly.

It also means if someone submited an acticle filled full of jargons that leads anyone not in that expertise to trust it is geniune, and noone in the editor group is expert in that particular field, the post cannot be immediately fixed by "someone who really is in the field and know the origional article is talking nonsense". Now if someone reference that article in that particular amount of time...[6]

Great idea.

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

i really dont see why anyone really cares about articles being edited by interested parties anyway. i dont care if GWB modifies his own entry.

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

brian.shapiro wrote:
i really dont see why anyone really cares about articles being edited by interested parties anyway. i dont care if GWB modifies his own entry.

Yep, I have to agree. Even though there have been cases where public figures/companies/organizations have edited out critical information, the community was able to notice this and un-sanitize the entries. Overall, I suspect that GWB has much more knowledge about himself that anyone else so if he owned a hamster named fluffy in the 5th grade, he should be able to add that fact.

GoddersUK
I CAN has cheezburger and you CAN'T has stop me!

brian.shapiro wrote:
Its not as bad as it sounds:

"These trusted editors will have to have proved their commitment to Wikipedia by posting 30 reliable changes within 30 days."

Which means anyone can be pushed into the 'editor' class if they post a lot of good edits

Ahhh... they've changed it.

article wrote:

Last Updated: 3:54am BST 21/09/2007

It used to read something like "there will be around 2000 of these editors."

Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin

Too bad the Britannica website(among other) didn't go with ad revenue instead of a subscription basis. They have the content, but on the internet people just don't want to pay for that kind of stuff anymore.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Harlequin wrote:
Too bad the Britannica website(among other) didn't go with ad revenue instead of a subscription basis. They have the content, but on the internet people just don't want to pay for that kind of stuff anymore.

I think the ratio of "price of something" and "buyers" follows the Gauss Error function, as soon as you do so much as mention "credit card" the number of buyers quickly reaches sub-unity levels.