Q: If Wikipedia required the approval of all edits made to its content, would you be more or less likely to use the site?
| posted by Fast Company staff
I don't think my personal habits would change. The only times I've made edits were to remove useless profanity from entries, and that is something I'm sure potential Wiki editors would take care of. As for the general population, I can see some users dropping off from posting commentary or information, but if someone is really interested or really cares about a certain topic, they'll still be willing to generate information and send it to editors, so long as Wikipedia makes the process simple enough.
I think there are two camps to consider---the part which tends to be a skeptic of open-source applications and that which delights in participating in the organic process home to Wikipedia. For the skeptic,according to "Wired" magazine, the ratio of informational errors in formally vs. informally edited 'pedias is indifferent. For the afficionado, the uniquely, open 'wiki' experience is one which only benefits from such a community and trumps the status of an endangered species.
I personally prefer the German Wikipedia model which distinguishes the "last stable version" (subject to review and approval) from the wild and woolly work in progress (which is as open as ever). This allows people who are looking for *reference* to see content that has at least passed some community based moderation for sanity and relevance - and see or jump into the work in progress edits to make changes. Approval of a working draft version as the new "latest stable version" can be widely distributed to a trusted community - and even the approval process can be tuned depending on how controversial or or significant edits to a particular article are. Where the wiki model is used for business purposes for collaboration on budgets, procedures, project / product plans its extremely important to allow people to reference the "last stable/reviewed" version when the have to act on the content - rather than acting on what may be the last random edit.
Moderated posting will probably have no effect on how I or anyone else uses Wikipedia, except for vandals. Currently, posts are moderated by everyone, not just those who are designated with an official role. Consequently, many of the articles are already good. Those that are not are marked as needing improvement. A few privileged moderators will provide the benefit of preemtively fighting abuse; but overall, users will experience the same level of quality.
I think it would get used just as often but, with everything edited and approved, it would be a much more reliable source BUT this will take away from it being the "people's" dictionary.
less likely, not that approval is not reqired now, the only factor now is that the approval is done by a lot many smarter people than a hanful of chosen ones.
6 Total
August 19, 2008 at 9:33am by Rachel King
I don't think my personal habits would change. The only times I've made edits were to remove useless profanity from entries, and that is something I'm sure potential Wiki editors would take care of. As for the general population, I can see some users dropping off from posting commentary or information, but if someone is really interested or really cares about a certain topic, they'll still be willing to generate information and send it to editors, so long as Wikipedia makes the process simple enough.
August 19, 2008 at 10:56am by Bailey King
I think there are two camps to consider---the part which tends to be a skeptic of open-source applications and that which delights in participating in the organic process home to Wikipedia. For the skeptic,according to "Wired" magazine, the ratio of informational errors in formally vs. informally edited 'pedias is indifferent. For the afficionado, the uniquely, open 'wiki' experience is one which only benefits from such a community and trumps the status of an endangered species.
August 19, 2008 at 11:02am by Greg Lloyd
I personally prefer the German Wikipedia model which distinguishes the "last stable version" (subject to review and approval) from the wild and woolly work in progress (which is as open as ever). This allows people who are looking for *reference* to see content that has at least passed some community based moderation for sanity and relevance - and see or jump into the work in progress edits to make changes. Approval of a working draft version as the new "latest stable version" can be widely distributed to a trusted community - and even the approval process can be tuned depending on how controversial or or significant edits to a particular article are. Where the wiki model is used for business purposes for collaboration on budgets, procedures, project / product plans its extremely important to allow people to reference the "last stable/reviewed" version when the have to act on the content - rather than acting on what may be the last random edit.
August 19, 2008 at 1:06pm by Charney Hoffmann
Moderated posting will probably have no effect on how I or anyone else uses Wikipedia, except for vandals. Currently, posts are moderated by everyone, not just those who are designated with an official role. Consequently, many of the articles are already good. Those that are not are marked as needing improvement. A few privileged moderators will provide the benefit of preemtively fighting abuse; but overall, users will experience the same level of quality.
August 19, 2008 at 1:43pm by Kathryn Collins
I think it would get used just as often but, with everything edited and approved, it would be a much more reliable source BUT this will take away from it being the "people's" dictionary.
August 20, 2008 at 8:20am by Aditya Dwivedi
less likely, not that approval is not reqired now, the only factor now is that the approval is done by a lot many smarter people than a hanful of chosen ones.