What is Digg?57 Comments
- ParanoiaAgent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It's actually less restrictive than the old policy, which would lock contoversial topics from ANYONE editing them for days at a time. So, all in all, it was a good move. Non-news really, I'm surprised anyone picked it up.
- acontorer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This is a very reasonable policy. Kudos to the folks at Wikipedia for trying hard to keep things as open as possible, yet minimize vandalism. I only wish our governments tried so hard to minimize the restrictions they put on us.
- PAStheLoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Don't be so pessimist. This kind of protection is needed. There are a lots of vandals, you can't just delete them, no anti-vandal program for life..
- jayhawk88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I love how it's Wikipedia's fault that people are *****.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"George W. Bush, Hitler, and Jesus Christ"
Oh man, they had a great vaudeville act back the day... - jiminoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4people suck, this is no shock. I'm just suprised it took this long.
- ACoolie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4My library teacher won't let us use Wikipedia at all for research reports because of this type of thing. Maybe this will help =D
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Having to wait four days to edit certain articles? Just like a cooling-off period for weapons buyers - if you really care enough, it's not going to make much difference.
If you don't want to wait, then you've failed a very simple test. - salsaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't understand the affinity for wikipedia-- it seems like a giant bathroom wall to me, albeit a well organized one with the best intentions. Sadly, not everybody has such great intentions. While I always liked the idea, without any real editorial mechanisms, nobody can expect to find actual information on wikipedia-- I'm very much looking forward to a design throwdown followed by a total overhaul. Still, at the moment, it can't be beat for stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCC-1701.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3acemilo, when you have people that replace Bush's page with "Bush is dumb" do you feel they are not vandalizing? They don't deserve to be "censored?" Grow a brain.
- RMuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't know why people are making such a big deal out of it. I'm glad they've added protection, but the bottom 1% might be too small of a group to forbid from editing...
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The list of pages ordered by number of revisions is most interesting, it shows that the George W Bush page is far and away the most edited, and the most vandalized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mostrevisions
Somebody actually did an analysis of the GWB page, and found that the page had a noticable number of productive edits, not all were vandalisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GWB_vandalisms.png - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I prefer the Uncyclopedia. It doesn't pretend to be something it's not, like the Wikipedia does!
http://www.robert.to/ - sfitchet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a good step and is not too drastic. The next thing they need to experiment with is establishing a process of becoming a "domain expert" ... obviously accounting for the fact that more than 1 person might want to be a "domain expert" for either George W. Bush, Hitler, Jesus Christ, or Adam Curry.
- perfect13thstep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good move, Wikipedia. It makes sense to me that there should be at least a little bit of restriction on something, due to the growing amount of blind trust people are putting in Wikipedia. My friend said that he had a professor in college use it as a source, which scares me, so this new rule is at least a LITTLE comforting...
- Zulithe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I totally agree with the new policy. I like the idea that ANYONE can edit wikipedia, and that is still true. Just you have to do build a reputation before you can edit "high risk" articles (and it isn't even difficult to get to the level of repute that wikipedia requires). Good move wikipedia. I'm sick of the vandalism too. As wikipedia gets more and more popular it becomes more important that we protect it from vandals and assure that the quality of the material found in the articles is as high as it can get. Most users in the newest 1% have little if anything to contribute to popular, well-maintained articles anyway.
- snugsoho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's really sad that Wikipedia has to do this at all, i mean, in regards to GWB i think it's a total fist class ***** but i wouldn't go editing a Wiki entry about him which some people rely on for informative and factual information just to spread my opinion.
- ihybridora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's good that they did this, because i have seen alot of vandalism.
- NGC6656, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would think that it would also protect against "GWB is an american hero" or some other crap like that. Not necessarily protecting the page against negative attacks.
- ShaneApex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a shame that they had to do this, it was a good run, but there are always the ones out there who just don't think about the greater good and wikipedia shows this.
- StoneWolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This Penny Arcade strip sums it up nicely:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16 - TheRealStyro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I initially thought the idea behind wikipedia was great, but on further thought noticed that a moderation and/or review system will need to be implemented to control the editing process. Not everyone could/should be able to edit an article, but everyones knowledge & opinion should be considered.
- procras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2semi-protection is a great plan. as was pointed out in one of the pages about it on Wikipedia, 1% of all accounts == about 4 days worth of accounts. all this is enforcing is that people who edit high-profile articles have at least been around for a couple days and hopefully know what Wikipedia is. hardly the beginning of the end.
- JhAgA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2- Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?
That is the typical and dumb Slashdot question following any story. To hell with "everyone can edit it", the protection is needed and it is much better now. Take your time to monitor wikipedia edits and you will see how hard it is to maintain a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
I would go even further to allow edits only if the user is registered for more than 1 year or so. - dark_helmet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its about time they implimented something like this, although vandalism is usualy quickly resolved this should reduce the work that the community has to do to maintain these articles.
- Poon007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This tells me that you can have anything posted and edit it as long as the topic is not a per son of "Extreme Evil" (Hitler) or "Extreme Good" (Jesus Christ) or a horrible human full of greed (G.W.Bush). Too many people have strong opinions on these figures. LOL
- NGC6656, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^ Sorry about the spelling, hit the wrong button.
- delta013, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's sad that there are people out there messing up what is in my opinion one of The best websites out there. I hope this helps them put a lid on the vandalism, but I'm not sure it will stop determined people from having there way.
- CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn spammers will burn in hell! Someone (or some group of people) had to ruin it for everyone else. This is not Wikipedia's fault and should be praised for finally doing something about it.
- Avisto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a very reasonable measure for Wikipedia to implement.
- skooche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this kind of protection is necessary and not over the top. it is not even that drastic.
in fact, it's perfect. - 4g1vn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wikipedia is an awesome reference. Rarely have I encountered errors on topics that I research. I agree with locking down the Jesus entry because of how good and informative it has become. Hats off to the folks who worked on that entry.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I just diffed pages containing so-called Vandalism for "Jesus Christ". Most of the vandalism was vandalism at all (like saying that, for instance, Jesus rode to heaven on the back of the Easter Bunny), but simply different Christian groups (LDS, Adventists, etc) arguing over stuff....It seems like they just want the "mainstream" evangelical viewpoint to be the Correct one...
- stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am I the only one who dislikes the idea of people trusting a source *ANYONE* can edit?
Seems...dumb. Not to mention a recipe for disaster down the road. I think we're asking for trouble by trusting the powers that run Wikipedia, and we're asking for even more trouble when we treat this neat web project as though it were actual, unimpeachable truth and fact. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They have to stop some of the editing because George cant have any largly used thing linking him to 911, and other terrorist acts.
- boardo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1apparantly some people on this site do not feel anything is worthy to be on the frontpage.
To inform you, It is on the front page because hundreds of people dugg it. I don't care to hear about anything google related but people on here seem to love it.
So the naysayer should just deal with the fact that other people have different tastes than them. - TiMMY8765, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think we need something like that on here to cut down on comment spam.
- dynamx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0big deal...someone vandalizes a page, emails get fired off to the contributors, and the page gets restored with one click.
the vandalism is so obvious that anyone with a slice of brain would notice and just ignore it. - entropyfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No.
- trimidium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah! Being one of the "old users" I can still edit Jesus Christ to better comply with my own beliefs!
haha
James
http://www.thesmartass.info/ - traherom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, it's a good thing.
- pixelmatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia needs MORE protection in my opinion. They should keep a record of at least the last several revisions in case of vandals, plus they should require membership to edit articles. I hope this stops the *problems* so that I can get back to using the best dictionary ever!
- Lavarock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone could edit the article on George Bush to say:
HE IS A DUM FAGOT!! GOERGE BU$H WANTS TO KI;L AMERCIA!!!1 WAR 4 OIL CUZ HES A FAGOT AN WOSRE TAHN HITLER!!11 HES A NAZI
Semi-protection makes it harder. Anyone can edit almost any article, except for certain ones that are repeatedly vandalized. They should place full-protection on the aforementined articles. - wingm8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh, so Bush is controlling Wikipedia now. Grow up. Also the Wikipedia article on Jesus is entirely objective, containing every major viewpoint on the subject, including the one stating that he was "nothing special." Think before you type imbecile.
- hufnmouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Administrators note that semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort not a pre-emptive measure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Tired of hearing of wikipedia..
- isoprophlex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0YAWN. what a dumb ***** digg.... what are you people retarded? CAN I POST THIS DIGG ~ "GOOGLE: THE FREE SEARCH ENGINE THAT ANYONE CAN SEARCH". ***** lame asses.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0[quote]
I prefer the Uncyclopedia. It doesn't pretend to be something it's not, like the Wikipedia does!
http://www.robert.to/
[/quote]
And what does Wikipedia pretend to be that it is not? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0yea like the adamn curry thing thats a great xample how people can stuff this up
- serendipitous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0ummm okay.
That was quite mature flooding the comments with koolaidguy links.
Good job. I'm impressed. It's cool that you had that much time on your hands to make so many different accounts.. log in.. submit a comment. log out.. and log back in and do it all over again.
Grats to you. -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 