What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.10 Comments
- tony23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6nope, just checked - it's still there, doing fine
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"
--Wikipedia - TheJenks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the comments under the article say it all. He is either looking for attention or a bit of an idiot.
- GeekyGirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This 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. - skeptik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If controlling vandals means that Wikipedia is dead, then does controling viruses mean that personal computing is dead? Isn't the very presence of vandals and the emerging need to control them a strong indicator of the success of Wikipedia? Me thinks so.
- twooranges, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Far from the truth.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=2y&size=large&compare_sites=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page&y=r&url=www.roughtype.com%252Findex.php - tanith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I 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.
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What a fat head!
When a writer's contribution begins and ENDS with the title, you can be sure we won't read his work again.
Can someone create a ~brief~ Wikipedia entry entitled: "The death of Roughtype.com"? - dugbay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2He's a idiot.
- trollenlord, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Democracy and information never mix well. 900 billion flies like eating *cough*, if you get what I mean. In services like Wikipedia and especially hit-and-run style services like Digg the truth gets very often buried under the thundering hum of the flies. Nothing surprising here.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is