Good, things like Wikipedia should require some level of skill to edit, otherwise anyone and everyone edits things and posts crap and someone has to go around cleaning it up.

That's a good point. You only really want people that intend to be regular contributors to be able to edit articles.

For mistakes there should be a feedback form that is linked to each page so people that can make the changes, do.

Ever been bored in an IT lesson? Wiki will become a sitting duck! (More so than it already is :p)

BobF64
Good, things like Wikipedia should require some level of skill to edit, otherwise anyone and everyone edits things and posts crap and someone has to go around cleaning it up.

My thoughts exactly. And more than skill. Putting thought into the edit is essential. I myself haven't bothered to learn the full range of wiki syntax, so when I do edit, I do put a bit of thought into what I'm doing before committing an edit.

BobF64
Good, things like Wikipedia should require some level of skill to edit, otherwise anyone and everyone edits things and posts crap and someone has to go around cleaning it up.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Any 14 kid can learn wiki markup easily enough so it in itself isn't going to be able to stop the trolls.

There are plenty of wise people who, whilst I'm sure perfectly capable of learning it, would be put off by it and not contribute their knowledge to the world because of it.

The idea isn't to stop trolls. Trolls will be trolls. The idea is to defer poor quality editing.

I find myself agreeing with both aidanjt and jimbouk.

Editing being a bit arcane does put off, but not prevent, trolls and garbage editing, but similarly , it does deter quality posts from people with things to contribute but either a lack of time, or a lack of inclination to faff about.

The problem is, is twits can be deterred, so can people with solid information, and if twits can persist and post anyway, so can people with solid info. I'm not convinced which category are more deterred, or quite where the balance should be between ease of use of tools, and monitoring/review of contributions.

It's not an easy issue.

I honestly thought this was about the bureaucratic minefield and the self-obsessed prats that come up with reams and reams of policy, before undoing every edit that contains a miniscule error, and going back to buddy up with their wiki-friends.

I spent ages figuring out the syntax so that I could start editing articles, and came across so many self-important sods who were more interested in reversing my work than improving it, that I just gave up in the end. There's a lot more to it than a complicated GUI.

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of ‘dont edit my stuff!’ culture there.

Finally, ive managed to post something good ;)

My opinion would probably be the reverse if all edits were submitted for moderation first, but I dont think that will ever happen, its just too much work.

Whilst the current system isnt perfect, it still allows a lot of mistakes to appear until someone notices and corrects it.

BobF64
Finally, ive managed to post something good ;)

My opinion would probably be the reverse if all edits were submitted for moderation first, but I dont think that will ever happen, its just too much work.

Whilst the current system isnt perfect, it still allows a lot of mistakes to appear until someone notices and corrects it.

The problem is that it goes against the whole wiki-ethos. Mind you, with time, they're moving further and further away from that ethos, because they've realised that it doesn't really work that well.

Nonetheless, I think it would be a very long time before they gave up on it altogether.

BobF64
Good, things like Wikipedia should require some level of skill to edit, otherwise anyone and everyone edits things and posts crap and someone has to go around cleaning it up.

I disagree.

We don't want trolls and idiots editing Wikipedia without thinking, but you don't need to know wiki syntax to vandalise a page. Just hit enter a few times and type something offensive.

For serous edits, we want to to set a reasonable bar of commitment and knowlege before people edit.

In a technical area, it is reasonable to use knowledge of wiki syntax as that bar, as if someone is a good enough computer scientist to correct an article on 6502 assembler, then it is not much to ask for them to spend a few minutes leaning another syntax.

However, for authors qualified to write articles outside scientific and technical fields, wiki syntax could be an overly high bar. If someone is an expert on Moorish art in tenth century Spain, then I don't want them put off writing about it because someone insists that they learn a strange syntax that has nothing to do with their field, I want that art expert to dive in and start typing.

chrestomanci
I disagree.

We don't want trolls and idiots editing Wikipedia without thinking, but you don't need to know wiki syntax to vandalise a page. Just hit enter a few times and type something offensive.

My “good” was in relation to the topic, not plans to make it simpler to edit.

Whilst its nice that anyone can edit, its one of the places most people shouldnt edit anything, but people dont seem to realise that.

Maybe the answer is that every submission is randomly peer reviewed by other randomly picked editors, rather than moderated, its at least checked in a way that you cant easily compromise.

BobF64
….

Maybe the answer is that every submission is randomly peer reviewed by other randomly picked editors, rather than moderated, its at least checked in a way that you cant easily compromise.

Perhaps, but if the ideal is to have peer review, then it implies peers and that implies a level of expertise. How do you ensure the “random” editors reviewing something have the necessary expertise in, using the given example, 10th Century Moorish art, to know if what they're reading is correct, or merely highly plausible cobblers?

That method may remove any “compromise” from having egotistical moderators, but it won't necessarily ensure quality is maintained.

I suspect, ultimately, that if you want material of a quality you can be sure you can rely on, you have to go to a source that rigorously (and therefore probably expensively) vets it's contributions. Encyclopaedia Britannica, maybe, or a relevant and specialist magazine. Wikipedia, as I understand it, relies on the garbage being picked up by enough other people to flag issues, and if you use it (and I do for some things, but emphatically not for others) you just have to accept limited certainty as to voracity. If that isn't acceptable …. go elsewhere.

Wikipedia is what it is, which is a good idea. What it is not, however, is a faultless Oracle of Delphi. We just have to accept the limitations, which are both it's biggest strength and at the same time, it's biggest weakness.

Requiring you to be a member would deter some vandals at least. IMO it would be worth the price of having one or two fewer useful edits - it's not much effort creating an account once, but when you have to create a new account for almost every edit, it becomes tedious..