I think Wikipedia is successful because of the immediacy of "hey, that's wrong -- but I fixed it and now it's right." Sure, it creates room for vandalism and more, but I feel like it's worth it. What do you think?
2006-09-13 01:50:49 · 3 answers · asked by Bemster 1 in Computers & Internet ➔ Internet
People woudl simply register with bogus data, essentially remaining anonymous, and then continue to vandalise.
2006-09-13 01:53:04 · answer #1 · answered by IT Pro 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, Wikipedia would not be as successful if every user had to register in order to edit. It would increase the barrier to entry, and many people simply wouldn't bother.
It would decrease good edits more than it would deter vandals. Vandals are there to waste time, so they don't mind spending a minute registering. Readers, on the other hand, might have a spare 10 seconds to fix a typo or revert some vandalism, but they don't want to get involved with the site and make a user account - not at first anyway.
This is why Wikia.com follows the Wikipedia model of allowing open editing, unlike most other wiki hosting sites, which take the opposite approach and end up with only one person editing each "wiki" because it's so hard for others to join (though I don't think you can really call it a wiki if there's only one person there).
2006-09-14 07:32:32 · answer #2 · answered by Angela 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It needs an accredited peer review and editing process with acknowledged subject matter experts. Till it does, it is just an interesting experiment in data manipulation.
2006-09-13 08:54:01 · answer #3 · answered by Dane 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋