Re: [MLUG] Re: Wikipedia on /.

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> I don't assume that one person has to monitor the wiki, but I was 
> assuming that one person, or only a few people, would be able to use 
> the CVS facility (or whatever it's called) to replace the latest 
> version of a page with an earlier version of the page.  That isn't 
> something that anyone can do, I hope.

Why shouldn't any user be able to revert the page if they could edit it 
to look like that reversion if they wanted anyway? As long as the 
history of changes isn't lost then any user should be able to able any 
changes needed.

> Your argument that most people will not try to damage the wiki is 
> true, of course.  Most people don't try to break into my server, but 
> believe me, I spend plenty of time keeping out the few who will do it.

But you don't have an army of users defending your server either. If you 
did then the few who give you so much trouble would have many more 
defending users in their path than you currently have.

> Sure, but with a wiki you have open gates.  That makes it pretty easy 
> to get in.  After they've been driven out, if I understand how the 
> system works, the gates remain open.  They don't have locks.  I'm 
> impressed that wikis work as well as they do given the ease with which 
> people could vandalize them.

They don't need locks because they can be fixed as easy as they can be 
broken and as we agreed there are many more people wanting to fix things 
than break things. It works as long as people car enough to maintain 
order. If they don't, then the usefulness of the resource does suffer. 
It's definately a system that I'd say with rights comes responsibility. 
If you use it it's your responsibility to help maintain it. Very democratic.

> I think they'll have to come up with some way to defend these things.  
> I hope not, but my view of human nature has become fairly realistic in 
> the last couple of decades.  Registration and passwords might have to 
> be added in some places.  Right now, at least some of these wikis are 
> wide open to anyone.

For organized attacks I'm sure they will but for the day to day trouble 
it's just a raw numbers game as to why the whole system works. There's 
no reason to stop anonymous edits but I do think a smart system would 
intergrate trust ratings.. so moderators could have an easier time 
verifying edits and so users can do the Slashdot thing and ignore any 
edits done by users with less than the desired trust rating. Guests 
obviously have no trust rating so their edits might be ignored, until 
verified by someone trusted, by most other users. You have to be 
realistic but that's no reason to shut the gates. I've yet to see any 
proof that closed media is any more secure against attacks than a fully 
open system. I seem to remember a big noise not long ago about a certain 
famous reporter admitting that most of his work was entirely fictional. 
That's certainly not a unique case, And as others have said.. it's easy 
enough to find mistakes in any encyclopedia you look at so it's 
definately not just Wiki-based media that gets errors.

I do think that there is a start-up curve to such projects where the 
negative factors are stronger. You do suffer from attacks, errors, etc. 
Then you get a strong enough community to keep such things out. You get 
commercial sponsors that hire specialised staff to look through new 
edits and correct errors. I'd not be surprised to see something like 
Encyclopedia Briatannica someday merge with Wikipedia. They could select 
the most often referenced articles for their print edition.. eliminating 
the question of which articles to include. Something that isn't easy for 
them to do now. They'd cut back dramaticly on their own expendiatures. 
They'd have a huge online version they could offer as the end-all 
resource. And it'd be good for the community to have paid fact checkers 
and writers contributing full-time. It'll work for the same reason 
opensource works.

-- 
Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://kavlon.org

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members