
Wikipedia considers limiting user edits - tsally
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10149648-93.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
======
tptacek
This proposal only applies to protected/semi-protected pages, most of which
are Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) for which Wikipedia already has
stricter standards. There's a spin to this proposal that actually makes the
encyclopedia even more inclusive, by allowing anonymous users who would
ordinarily be prohibited from editing protected BLP articles to at least have
their contributions reviewed.

------
smhinsey
If the deployment ever grows to cover more of the site, this sounds like
something that would be rife with abuse, and even though it doesn't sound like
that's the plan, it's interesting to think about how you might want to solve
that. One of the things it suggests is the need for wikipedia to involve
democratic trust metrics (i.e., you aren't an admin just because you're
friends with another admin) but this invites its own host of problems.
Interesting topic though.

------
AndrewWarner
As wikipedia matures, they won't be as desperate for article contributions. So
they won't need to take the risk of having bad data. This is a natural
progression.

------
matthias
I think Wikipedia is facing a myth vs. reality problem: the idea of an freely
editable encyclopaedia is wonderful, but in the end a closed & moderated
system might prove more useful.

~~~
tptacek
I think it's misleading to call Wikipedia an "idea" at this point; it very
much _is_ a freely-editable encyclopedia; it is already a superior substitute
in the market for encyclopedias.

------
gravitycop
Also over here, posted a day ago (readwriteweb):
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=448473>

------
rms
Practically this is a great idea. It'll go through eventually.

