5 ms·

Why would they allow just anyone to edit the article? They probably could be a better process, which goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia, to verify identity but

Why would they allow just anyone to edit the article? They probably could be a better process, which goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia, to verify identity but why would they not ask for this?

sandworm101 5y ago
Because wikipedia was meant to be open. When the article was first created it had zero documentation. Someone just wrote from memory and published it. It then sat for a decade without additions. Now it cannot be touched because editing an old article draws mod attention. I guess if I cared I could hire someone to make the edit, someone with a longstanding wikipedia account. Such things do happen. I guess that is the real future of openness.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Wikipedia publishes in exquisite detail what it's meant to be; it's one of the most rigorously documented communities on the Internet. Again: if you can cite a specific topic you've had problems with, along with the time the problems happened, we can probably see whether there was abusive administration happening (that definitely does happen sometimes) or whether you were just not careful about following their process (far more common).
- davidgerard 5y ago
  The complete history of most articles is right there on the wiki. You've made several comments like this, you should be able to provide multiple examples to substantiate your claims.
passerby1 5y ago
Following the logics of requiring an official government-issued docs, is it required for any fact written in Wikipedia, or where they draw the line? In other words, how exactly is the "common knowledge" separated from the "controversal" one, which requires a proof to present to self-appointed guardians of the True?
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > where they draw the line? Where the king of the article hill would decide.
- teddyh 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_...
  - techdragon 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_...
- kens 5y ago
  The official Wikipedia rule is that all material must be verifiable from a reliable source. There is a whole lot of policy and debate behind that rule; for a start see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
dghughes 5y ago
No offence but that is shocking that someone would even ask that. The entire point for the existence of Wikipedia is anyone can contribute or edit anything. Wayback machine capture of Wikipedia from Mar 31 2001 > Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already have over 13,000 articles. We want to make over 100,000, so let's get to work--anyone can edit any page--copyedit, expand an article, write a little, write a lot. See the Wikipedia FAQ for information on how to edit pages and other questions.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  That was 21 years ago. The nature of Wikipedia has evolved over time as the web has evolved over time. In fact, it followed the pattern of most large web institutions: open and freewheeling when nobody cares, consolidating and conservative as it becomes infrastructure.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > That was 21 years ago. Somebody should tell Wikipedia. Their banner still says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And we're asking "why would they let just anyone edit a page?"?
    - setr 5y ago
      Anyone can edit a page… but not all edits have to be accepted. The problem, as it usually is with anything open on the internet, is that a malicious user can do ridiculously more damage with less effort and time than a benevolent user can prevent or supersede. The scales are lopsided. So it inevitably becomes that the onus falls on filtering out the crap before it hits (rather than cleaning it up afterwards)… and thus inevitably more policy, bureaucracy and requirements placed up front. And while anyone can choose to meet these requirements, it becomes cost-prohibitive to learn and adhere for a drive-by editor, whereas it gets amortized out for long-term users. Thus it becomes open to all, yet open to few.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago

Why would they allow just anyone to edit the article? They probably could be a better process, which goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia, to verify identity but why would they not ask for this?

sandworm101 5y ago

Because wikipedia was meant to be open. When the article was first created it had zero documentation. Someone just wrote from memory and published it. It then sat for a decade without additions. Now it cannot be touched because editing an old article draws mod attention. I guess if I cared I could hire someone to make the edit, someone with a longstanding wikipedia account. Such things do happen. I guess that is the real future of openness.

tptacek 5y ago
Wikipedia publishes in exquisite detail what it's meant to be; it's one of the most rigorously documented communities on the Internet. Again: if you can cite a specific topic you've had problems with, along with the time the problems happened, we can probably see whether there was abusive administration happening (that definitely does happen sometimes) or whether you were just not careful about following their process (far more common).
davidgerard 5y ago
The complete history of most articles is right there on the wiki. You've made several comments like this, you should be able to provide multiple examples to substantiate your claims.

passerby1 5y ago

Following the logics of requiring an official government-issued docs, is it required for any fact written in Wikipedia, or where they draw the line? In other words, how exactly is the "common knowledge" separated from the "controversal" one, which requires a proof to present to self-appointed guardians of the True?

justsomehnguy 5y ago
> where they draw the line? Where the king of the article hill would decide.
teddyh 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_...
- techdragon 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_...
kens 5y ago
The official Wikipedia rule is that all material must be verifiable from a reliable source. There is a whole lot of policy and debate behind that rule; for a start see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

dghughes 5y ago

No offence but that is shocking that someone would even ask that. The entire point for the existence of Wikipedia is anyone can contribute or edit anything. Wayback machine capture of Wikipedia from Mar 31 2001 > Welcome to Wikipedia, a collaborative project to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch. We started in January 2001 and already have over 13,000 articles. We want to make over 100,000, so let's get to work--anyone can edit any page--copyedit, expand an article, write a little, write a lot. See the Wikipedia FAQ for information on how to edit pages and other questions.

shadowgovt 5y ago
That was 21 years ago. The nature of Wikipedia has evolved over time as the web has evolved over time. In fact, it followed the pattern of most large web institutions: open and freewheeling when nobody cares, consolidating and conservative as it becomes infrastructure.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > That was 21 years ago. Somebody should tell Wikipedia. Their banner still says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." And we're asking "why would they let just anyone edit a page?"?
  - setr 5y ago
    Anyone can edit a page… but not all edits have to be accepted. The problem, as it usually is with anything open on the internet, is that a malicious user can do ridiculously more damage with less effort and time than a benevolent user can prevent or supersede. The scales are lopsided. So it inevitably becomes that the onus falls on filtering out the crap before it hits (rather than cleaning it up afterwards)… and thus inevitably more policy, bureaucracy and requirements placed up front. And while anyone can choose to meet these requirements, it becomes cost-prohibitive to learn and adhere for a drive-by editor, whereas it gets amortized out for long-term users. Thus it becomes open to all, yet open to few.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago