- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Emma Simbouras voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Jolischats3.14159265358979 edited the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Geargo Augmerm joined Debatewise
- + Mukabla voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor joined Debatewise
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Brijo247 voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Urikipiecreks joined Debatewise
- + Mukabla joined Debatewise
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Brijo247 voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Gogogo voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
SHOULD WIKIPEDIA CHANGES BE APPROVED BY EDITORS?
Proposed changes to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, will mean that entries must be approved by a group of editors before being made. Currently, Wikipedia is free for everyone to post and edit entries except for certain protected entries. Making entries subject to approval will solve many problems - such as the current issue of people reporting dying celebrities as dead before they actually die - but runs the risk of changing the very nature of the 'egalitarian' site - a place where the general public can decide what goes in their own encyclopedia.
Should wikipedia changes be approved by editors?
Yes, because... Will solve many large flaws with Wikipedia
Problems such as deliberate vandalisation of articles, false and very biased information being added to entries have been reduced by banning anonymous posts - users must be registered and log in. However, the problem still resides, largely because Wikipedia is huge and constantly changing, making it impossible to find all violations on time. If entries were subject to approval, they would be moderated BEFORE they appeared on Wikipedia.
Should wikipedia changes be approved by editors?
Yes, because... A majority vote in favour
A user poll of Wikipedia revealed that 60% of its users approved of a trial period using the new system. If Wikipedia is truly the people's site, a majority vote needs to be listened to. Wikipedia users want to be able to edit the articles, but they also want the site to work properly and it doesn't if people write nonsense.
Should wikipedia changes be approved by editors?
No, because... It would slow down Wikipedia to a halt
With the current system, Wikipedia entries are submitted instantly once they are written. This is necessary to manage the huge load of entries and edits made on Wikipedia every second. Human moderators simply couldn't cope with the load if they were expected to approve everything, even with a team of thousands - not if they wanted to properly look at everything put in front of them!
Should wikipedia changes be approved by editors?
No, because... Would defeat the point of the site
Wikipedia is not supposed to have a hierarchy. It is a site where anyone can include information on anything. If the site is heavily moderated, it would run the risk that it would just become heavily biased towards the Moderators' point of view. In addition, the Moderators would end up having to express information on subjects they know nothing about - Wikipedia has entries about almost everything and Moderators can't be expected to know everything. Nobody will trust such judgements.
Vote on this debate: Should wikipedia changes be approved by editors?
Modified:
03 Jun 2010
Point 1. Will solve many large flaws with Wikipedia
Problems such as deliberate vandalisation of articles, false and very biased information being added to entries have been reduced by banning anonymous posts - users must be registered and log in. However, the problem still resides, largely because Wikipedia is huge and constantly changing, making it impossible to find all violations on time. If entries were subject to approval, they would be moderated BEFORE they appeared on Wikipedia.
Point 2. A majority vote in favour
A user poll of Wikipedia revealed that 60% of its users approved of a trial period using the new system. If Wikipedia is truly the people's site, a majority vote needs to be listened to. Wikipedia users want to be able to edit the articles, but they also want the site to work properly and it doesn't if people write nonsense.
Point 1. It would slow down Wikipedia to a halt
With the current system, Wikipedia entries are submitted instantly once they are written. This is necessary to manage the huge load of entries and edits made on Wikipedia every second. Human moderators simply couldn't cope with the load if they were expected to approve everything, even with a team of thousands - not if they wanted to properly look at everything put in front of them!
Point 2. Would defeat the point of the site
Wikipedia is not supposed to have a hierarchy. It is a site where anyone can include information on anything. If the site is heavily moderated, it would run the risk that it would just become heavily biased towards the Moderators' point of view. In addition, the Moderators would end up having to express information on subjects they know nothing about - Wikipedia has entries about almost everything and Moderators can't be expected to know everything. Nobody will trust such judgements.