...plus I reckon we should think about making it more bleedin obvious
that everyone can edit any article. I know, I know. Anyone who'd
actually ''read'' the welcome blurb on the WP home page should not be
able to miss that bit. Yet most people ''are'' currently missing that
bit -- because ''it just isn't what people expect''. Then they end up
finding out about that little "secret" much, much further down the line
-- and IMHO that's precisely why some people have so strong reactions
about our unlimited editability:
It's like "OMG -- I never knew", followed by, "I feel cheated/stupid
not to have realized", followed by: "This can't be right."
If we were able to figure out a way to make it yet more obvious -- MUCH
more obvious -- that anyone can edit, then we might be able to avoid
people getting that "unlimited editability shock".
Flip thought: Maybe though, that obscurity helps protect our content as
well. Because it requiring actual brain activity to figure out that you
can post might also keep alotta morons and trolls at bay.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 22 Sep 2004, at 01:39, Jens Ropers wrote:
Maybe we should just send these guys this link [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=National_Academy_for_Gifted_and_Talented_Youth&action=edit ] and
tell them to work away.
Wouldn't that be a near-perfect solution?
What do people think?
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
On 21 Sep 2004, at 21:20, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Barry Meatyard
<Barry.Meatyard(a)warwick.ac.uk> -----
From: "Barry Meatyard" <Barry.Meatyard(a)warwick.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:04:35 +0100
To: <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Subject: Entry in Wikipedia
Dear Mr Wales,
Our attention has recently been drawn to an entry for the National
Academy on 'Wikipedia'.
The National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth is an English
government agency and part of the national education system.
We are aware that the entry was initiated by a 16 year old Academy
student with a less than complete knowledge of the Academy's remit.
Subsequently a number of edits have been made by even younger
students and we accept that some of these are getting the entry
closer to reality. However we would be interested to know the level
of editorial control beyond these edits. For example who removed the
adverse comment (merely a student's perception) dated 30 Aug? Is this
done by Wikipedia staff - and if so how are 1 million plus articles
policed?
We would be happy to rewrite the entry to enable it to reflect more
accurately the remit and contractual obligations of the Academy,
which of course would be entirely factual as befits an objective
encyclopedia. However we need to be reassured that such objectivity
is not compromised by the facility for those who may have a skewed
perspective to air it in public.
Whilst for some entries it may be interesting to see the evolution of
an entry, (as a professional botanist I was fascinated by the
development of some of the plant focused entries), the fact that
potentially damaging and inaccurate comments remain in the 'history'
thread is of concern to us as a publicly funded body. You will
appreciate that we are not convinced that a collegiate approach to
evolving a definition for a government agency of which there may be a
variety of subjective impressions is appropriate.
At this stage we are seeking reassurance with respect to the
editorial policy of the site and to request whether inaccurate and
potentially damaging entries can be removed from the history.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours,
Barry
Dr. Barry Meatyard
Director of Student Services
National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth
University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
UK
Tel: 44 (0) 24 76 574483
----- End forwarded message -----
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on
fr.wikipedia.org
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l