Comments: Wikipedia: The so-called "encyclopedia" that any axe-grinder can edit-war

If you include all of Ted Franks proxy edits - words that encourage other users to alter the Sicko page - then the count reaches 120-130 easy. I've not seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. And it's so blatant, too.

Posted by Moonie at August 25, 2007 04:09 AM

I've been arguing against the silly "no links to attack sites" policy for months... I even wrote an essay about it.

Posted by Dan at August 26, 2007 10:18 PM

Moonie: Honestly, I find it hard to believe this is unique - just loud.

Dan: Yes. Again, not every admin is on the warpath. But the sociological structure of Wikipedia also breeds and empowers the fanatics, which is troubling.

Posted by Seth Finkelstein at August 27, 2007 12:58 AM

Looks like the discussion has been archived to'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive290#MichaelMoore.com_-_hypocrisy.3F , if you want to update your links. [There are actually two issues on that page.]

Posted by Lis Riba at August 27, 2007 06:23 PM

BTW, here's an interesting possible Wikipedia development: Flagged revisions.
Described in somewhat alarming terms here and here, it sounds as though admins will be gaining even more power over what ordinary users can see and edit.

Posted by Lis Riba at August 27, 2007 08:36 PM

Interesting. From a software standpoint, MediaWiki is finally supporting what CMS's generally support, and I what I called for here. If it's another stake in the coffin of wikipedia as a free-for-all, I don't think that's a bad thing, but yes, obviously, that puts more relative power in the hands of the editors, which, of course, might impel otherwise disengaged internauts (present company included) to get involved in wiki governance.

Posted by Jon Garfunkel at August 27, 2007 09:51 PM

Thanks, Lis, I updated the link.

I assume they're talking about "stable versions", which has been talked about forever. I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by Seth Finkelstein at August 27, 2007 09:53 PM