roughtype.com— Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," was a nice experiment in the "democratization" of publishing, but it didn't quite work out. Wikipedia is dead.
May 24, 2006View in Crawl 4
This is not the death of Wikipedia; it is the natural evolution of the online encyclopedia. In a sense, evolution is like death. The original species becomes extinct and is replaced by one that is better adapted to the current environment. As Wikipedia evolves, it is adopting practices that are similar to those used by open source communities. Open source projects rarely (if ever) give access to the source code to anyone who wants to contribute. A smaller group of people have access to commit changes, while newer and less experienced members must submit code to others who review it and make the changes (or not) based on the merits of the contribution. In Wikipedia, unregistered users and very new users are not given full access to edit any article; however, after a few days they can earn the right to make changes. Those that abuse the privilege to edit articles by vandalizing pages will no longer be allowed to make changes. This seems like common sense, especially when compared to the commonly accepted practices of open source communities. These practices help to prevent controversial entries from being edited with incorrect or incomplete information in order to protect the integrity of the information in Wikipedia and to preserve the notion that Wikipedia is a reliable and credible source of information. Wikipedia has simply evolved as an online community in order to maintain its survival.
I absolutely agree. It's become a game to some to make inaccurate edits to articles just to see if they'll become accepted fact by the masses - illustrating the inadvisability of relying on Wikipedia as a primary source. Changes to reduce vandalism have become necessary, so it's common sense to implement them.
geminitojanusMay 25, 2006
"Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"--Wikipedia
geekygirlMay 25, 2006
This is not the death of Wikipedia; it is the natural evolution of the online encyclopedia. In a sense, evolution is like death. The original species becomes extinct and is replaced by one that is better adapted to the current environment. As Wikipedia evolves, it is adopting practices that are similar to those used by open source communities. Open source projects rarely (if ever) give access to the source code to anyone who wants to contribute. A smaller group of people have access to commit changes, while newer and less experienced members must submit code to others who review it and make the changes (or not) based on the merits of the contribution. In Wikipedia, unregistered users and very new users are not given full access to edit any article; however, after a few days they can earn the right to make changes. Those that abuse the privilege to edit articles by vandalizing pages will no longer be allowed to make changes. This seems like common sense, especially when compared to the commonly accepted practices of open source communities. These practices help to prevent controversial entries from being edited with incorrect or incomplete information in order to protect the integrity of the information in Wikipedia and to preserve the notion that Wikipedia is a reliable and credible source of information. Wikipedia has simply evolved as an online community in order to maintain its survival.
tanithMay 28, 2006
I absolutely agree. It's become a game to some to make inaccurate edits to articles just to see if they'll become accepted fact by the masses - illustrating the inadvisability of relying on Wikipedia as a primary source. Changes to reduce vandalism have become necessary, so it's common sense to implement them.