Wikipedia has implemented a new policy of using "semi-protection" on targets of frequent vandalism, such as its entries on love, beauty or George W. Bush.Wikipedia has implemented a new policy of using "semi-protection" on targets of frequent vandalism, such as its entries on love, beauty or George W. Bush.
Semi-protection of a page prevents new registered users and all unregistered users from editing that page and is only applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem.
Although news reports are calling the new policy a major revision, it is actually only a slight spin on Wikipedia's existing policy of protection.
Protection gives Wikipedia administrators the ability to protect pages from being edited or images from being overwritten, except by other administrators.
The move comes after complaints from John Seigenthaler Sr. regarding errors in an entry that falsely implicated the U.S. journalist and former aide to Robert Kennedy in his assassination and that of his brother, U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
In an editorial published in USA Today, Seigenthaler wrote that the error had remained on Wikipedia for several months and that the anonymity of Wikipedia posters made it virtually impossible to track down its source. In the article, he described Wikipedia as a "flawed and irresponsible research tool."
Even though the perpetrator of the inaccurate entry, Brian Chase, confessed and was subsequently fired by his employer, the incident set off a torrent of criticism about Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility.
Still, according to a recent study by the journal Nature, Wikipedia isn't particularly prone to inaccuracies.
Click here to read more from columnist Sean Carton about Wikipedia's limits.
Nature's peer review of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica found that among 42 entries tested, Wikipedia contained about four inaccuracies, compared with Britannica's three.
Although 42 entries is a drop in the bucket when compared with the 873,231 articles on Wikipedia as of Monday, Nature concluded that inaccuracies on Wikipedia are the exception, not the rule.
"The difference in accuracy was not particularly great," the journal reported.
Check out eWEEK.com's for more on IM and other collaboration technologies.
Online Media 
