I've had my concerns over the years about how Wikipedia editors manage themselves, but I never agreed with former co-founder Larry Sanger's proposal to manage them through a top-down process. Now "Sanger, has triggered a fresh chorus of Republican calls for reform, with a comprehensive proposal to overhaul the platform and make it more open to conservatives." He offers nine theses which run counter to procedures and guidelines editors have adopted over the years. For example, Sanger would end consensus, "because it hides legitimate dissent under a false veneer of unanimity," he would abolish the list of perennial sources that assesses the reliability of commonly referenced news and information sites, he would let the public 'rate' articles, and he would end 'permanent bans' of authors he says "are too often used to enforce ideological conformity." I honestly don't think turning Wikipedia into the X/Twitter of reference materials would be helpful. Thankfully, it's a lot harder to bully Wikipedia that it is to bully CBS or ABC.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
