A step forward for Wikipedia

Yes; a step in the right direction.

One tiny step for wikipedia, one tiny step for wikipedia!

Thinkst thou so? I am not sure. I liked the 'unregulated' aspect of Wiki. I am fully capable of excersising my own judgement of the content (as per the recent 'snopes' issue). Time and exposure will likely purge invalid content, and I always thought that was the entire intent of Wiki.

Either way, I am sure this was a necessary change brought about by legal shi(t)ssues that should never have come to pass in a reasonable society. Apologize for my Gaulle...

Will we never be sensible?

Rm

I think it's a step forward because it recognises the world as it is, not as Wikipedia would like it to be. Some control is necessary, even if the necessity is viewed as regrettable.

Actually, this particular incident has prompted Wikipedia's Nr 1 detractor site, The Reg, to have another go at it. The following article, despite almost drowning in its own vitriol, does highlight what seem to be fairly fundamental flaws with Wikipedia:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/

Quote:

I think it's a step forward because it recognises the world as it is, not as Wikipedia would like it to be. Some control is necessary, even if the necessity is viewed as regrettable.

Actually, this particular incident has prompted Wikipedia's Nr 1 detractor site, The Reg, to have another go at it. The following article, despite almost drowning in its own vitriol, does highlight what seem to be fairly fundamental flaws with Wikipedia:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/

***(from article) it's an "emergent" sign of "collective intelligence"***

of something cultures already are?

> prompted Wikipedia's Nr 1 detractor site, The Reg, to have another go at it

And a much better go it was. I think they put together a much more convincing and interesting look at the site and I largely agree with their conclusions regarding the biograhpies, i.e. that where 'faith triumphs rationality, it isn't unusual to see cult-like characteristics emerge'.

But I'm not too worried about some mingy problems with some guy's life details. Newspapers publish all sorts of crap; panoramic pages of propaganda guised as articles with small grey 'ad' provisos at the top of the page - and that in the NYTimes! (e.g. has anyone noticed the Kazakhstan offensive) And people really worry about how little wiki might skew history. Priorities people.

And people really worry about how little wiki might skew history. Priorities people.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here.

Quote:

And people really worry about how little wiki might skew history. Priorities people.

Is "little" an adjective modifying "wiki" or an adverb modifying "skew"?

> Is "little" an adjective modifying "wiki" or an adverb modifying "skew"?

Don't be facetious, Faldage

Quote:

facetious

Wull �

Without audible intonation it could be taken either way.