By: unlock cell phone

unlock cell phone — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:20:28 +0000

Wikipedia is a good place where we get our answers in a good way.
Thanks for your commentits good to know how it works.

By: Ajit Jaokar

Ajit Jaokar — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:59:34 +0000

Many thanks Ian. All this was a revelation to me as well. Its nice to know how it works. thanks for your comment kind rgds Ajit

By: Ian Homer

Ian Homer — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:48:32 +0000

Great write up – I’ve always been fascinated by the way the Wikipedia content has evolved and especially around the different roles of the people making the content happen – right from the person watching the Oscars as it happens and editing the page with in seconds, all the way to the wiki gnomes keeping the garden clean. The wiki patterns @ http://www.wikipatterns.com/display/wikipatterns/Wikipatterns was enlightening for me on describing the different types of editors and administrators. Wikipedia is most of the time “correct”, but if it were to be a trusted source then there has to be some accountability for the content and that does mean edging away from anonymity and away from the very thing that has allowed it to grow so rapidly. For me, it’s quite a positive sign on the web community that there is a so much stronger force trying to make it “right” as opposed to the minority who mislead or vandalise. I often wonder whether Wikipedia should try to be like a trusted encyclopedia / journal – or whether it is simply a different beast with agile-mostly-correct content. Then I start philosophising on who do I really trust and have to remind myself to always take what I read and hear with a pinch of salt, even from the most trusted of sources.

Comments on: How the Wikipedia reputation engine works and why Wikipedia should not allow anonymous edits

By: unlock cell phone

By: Ajit Jaokar

By: Ian Homer