Aging websites and the New Web, or, how do we fix Wikipedia?

As the representative of a website on the starting block, it’s important to look in awe at the giants of the old web–and critique them. Wired’s Epicenter blog posted an interesting look at the problems facing Wikipedia and what can be done to salvage their vision after everyone from Stephen Colbert to the stars of 30 Rock parody the troll-ification of living people’s entry pages. Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, is pushing for “flagged revisions,” which would hopefully cut back on some of the more high-profile vandalism, like the fake deaths of two senators last week. As one commenter on the post so aptly put it:

“Think of opensource software. Do people automatically edit code, then push to code to the centralized repository for inclusion? No. So why are wikis treated
the same way? Everyone can just jump in, edit the source, and push it?” -Aaron

There’s a healthy debate raging within the Wikipedia community over these proposed structural changes with Wales leading the pack for his flagged revisions and simultaneously insisting that it’s not a restriction at all. According to the page, approximately 60% of users are for the switch.


The question then, for some users, becomes why not impose reasonable restrictions? The core group of editors, the people who take the time to really improve the quality and depth of entries, deserve some sort of distinction from the one-time troll users who do nothing but act foolishly destructive.
Does any restriction whatsoever violate the original spirit of Wikipedia? Or is it reasonable to change that vision to adapt to the times? At Swyzzle, we plan to keep looking forward, eliciting comments and advice from our users, and changing to suit their needs. 

Leave a Reply