Modified:
03 Feb 2009
by Admin

Vote totals:

Yes:

50%

No:

50%

Neutral:

0%

 
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.


Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Bookmark and Share


DEBATE: 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?


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?


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?


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?


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 the overall debate: Should wikipedia changes be approved by editors?

What do you think?  Vote on this debate below.
Absolutely Yes
Strongly Yes
Mostly Yes
Partially Yes
Neutral
Partially No
Mostly No
Strongly No
Absolutely No
1. Will solve many large flaws with Wikipedia
# 1

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.

admin

|

17:13, 02 February 09

|

Karma Score: 14



2. A majority vote in favour
# 1

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.

admin

|

17:13, 02 February 09

|

Karma Score: 14



1. It would slow down Wikipedia to a halt
# 1

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!

admin

|

17:14, 02 February 09

|

Karma Score: 14



2. Would defeat the point of the site
# 1

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.

admin

|

17:14, 02 February 09

|

Karma Score: 14



Loading...