WingColors

Wow that is really interesting, great find.

Looking at their process it makes sense that they do. It's a very complicated system but it doesn't seem to be used as much as I would think. Particularly with all the reports going on with malicious editing since that program was released that easily matches IP address with who made the edits.

Does anyone really understand the Wikipedia Community? I have yet to meet a single person in my life who edits Wikipedia. You think you would meet them.

I don't know any, but someone certainly was on top of constantly fixing the Fidel Castro page on Friday.

I edit Wikipedia now and then, if you're solidly aware of something and can link to the evidence for it, might as well help out the rest of the world.

But i'm sure there are just really dedicated people out there who even enjoy it. Like the people who answer various questions here on 9Rules.

And as far as I've ever noticed, Wikipedia is all over keeping their people in line; I'm sure they have as many trials as are necessary. Unlike in real life where people love endless consecutive court cases so much we even build special houses that only those exclusively lucky enough to have attended and lost can live in.

I've edited the Wikipedia a few times, but only for spelling or grammatical purposes (they really annoy me). It is my understanding that there is a page somewhere that shows recently edited articles, which is constantly monitored by a large consortium of bored geeks and Stephen Colbert (for the elephants, of course). That is how they can quickly deal with all the random and erroneous comments that appear from time to time.

I suck at spelling and grammar. Solepsis you might be on to something. I think when Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia, I don't think he counted on stumbling across a demographic of bored academia types.

I know it's kind of mean but it might be that Wikipedia was build on the backs of people who had nothing better to do. I know I'm making a lot of assumptions but it's something to think about.

That's really interesting. I've never edited a Wiki--which is pretty indicative of my attention to detail actually. This is a really interesting find though, hthth. Again. :)

I have yet to meet a single person in my life who edits Wikipedia.

I've met some. I've done edits myself — can't resist being a part of such an interesting phenomenon. I've only created two pages though.

I edit Wikipedia now and then, if you're solidly aware of something and can link to the evidence for it, might as well help out the rest of the world.

Yeah, exactly.

@solepsis
It is my understanding that there is a page somewhere that shows recently edited articles, which is constantly monitored by a large consortium of bored geeks

You sound very condescending. Do you consider the world's greatest free information source something you'd need to be bored to contribute to? Or were you just being funny?

@Michael
I know it's kind of mean but it might be that Wikipedia was build on the backs of people who had nothing better to do.

What, exactly, do you think is better than contributing free knowledge for the good of the world?

I'm not a frequent contributor to the Wikipedia — but I can certainly testify that I've used it a thousand times, and a thousand times over its information has helped me solve problems. Theoretically, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a nobler online activity.

That's interesting! I know of one person who has edited Wikipedia. They did that due to the fact that another person edited content, and that edit changed the factual history of the content. The person I know went back in and edited it to reflect the events correctly. They were the initial author of the content.

If I remember correctly, the person I know, had to contact Wikipedia in order to have the particular content locked, so it couldn't be edited again.

It's not exactly a trial. As a matter of fact, there's a guideline against comparing any aspect of the Wikipedian process with legal terms.

We have many ways of resolving disputes, and ArbCom is just one (but the second highest authority on the Wikipedia!).

I have over 10,000 edits

That's interesting about the guidline, computerjoe.

Ah, it's not a guideline. Just more of a wiki tradition :) (we don't WikiLawyer :) )

Thanks for the link, computerjoe! :)

You know what? I find it even more interesting that it's a tradition. That's absolutely brilliant — and I wonder whether anti-Wikilawyering has anything to do with the degeneration of modern law practices.

ComputerJoe — I salute you for the 10,000 edits.

Making it a guideline is brilliant. The more I think about it, the more I put in context with the benefits of the web. Rules are always incomplete and up for interpretation, because we simply don't have the time and manpower for evaluating every single aspect of every single case.

On the web, however, with a community ruled by collective mind, guidelines suffice. Where majority rules a constantly evolving structure, such as the Wikipedia, and the majority can instantly voice their opinions over the wire without immediate bureaucratic bottlenecks — a guideline is sufficient. We don't need to make it a strict rule that inadvertantly involves loop-holes and twistings of the truth; the collective mind is at our disposal all the time to evaluate the situation.

Ingenious.

I actually just edited a Wikpedia entry the other day, I had to add some information to the automatic watches page. I actually have a lot of things I need to add to that page but I just don't have the time right now.

I've edited Wikipedia too. Thousands of times -- though certainly not 10,000 times, that's good going Computerjoe. Also, my contributions are almost entirely fixing spelling mistakes and grammar errors. My intimate knowledge of the Wikipedia Style Guide is almost embarrassing.

To get back to hthth's point though -- I reckon Wikipedia is the single example (honestly, try and name another) of crowdsourcing working online.

Ah well I guess sometimes our beliefs and perceptions are sometimes shaped by our own shortcoming. I'm not a terribly booksmart person so I don't think I would ever be able to contribute to wikipedia. If I ever did want to contribute to an article I suppose I could do library research.