Wikipedia hopes to make editing user-friendly

December 3rd, 2008 By ANDREW VANACORE , AP Business Writer

(AP) -- Concerned that many would-be contributors to Wikipedia are being scared away, the foundation that runs the Internet encyclopedia is getting an $890,000 grant to try to make the editing process more user-friendly.

---

Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .

---

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Study suggests doctors could add to Wikipedia

Apr 30, 2009 | 3 / 5 (4) | 4

Wired editor acknowledges lifting Wiki material

Jun 24, 2009 | not rated yet | 0

Wikipedia blocks Scientology from altering entries

May 30, 2009 | 4.9 / 5 (18) | 14

Expert: Wikipedia won't go away, so learn how to use it

Feb 22, 2007 | 4.3 / 5 (26) | 0

New program color-codes text in Wikipedia entries to indicate trustworthiness

Aug 03, 2007 | 4.2 / 5 (12) | 0

• MKS - Dec 03, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
  • rate
  great step!!
  • flag
• Soylent - Dec 03, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
  • rate
  No, please don't. If can't figure such a trivial thing out I'm not terribly interested in reading what you have to say.
  • flag
• LariAnn - Dec 03, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
  • rate
  One major thing that turns potential contributors off is the few people that seem to control everything that is submitted. They claim to be on the lookout for "link spam" but their own contributions are rife with self-promoting entries and links. I found this out the first time I tried contributing. If you are not one of the "gestapo" who patrol the wiki, you are not welcome. Personal and self-promoting links are prohibited except for the 'gestapo', who use them freely and abundantly for their own profit.
  Heck, I would have been happy to tell them this to help them improve contributions, and all I would have charged is $890.00!
  • flag
• gopher65 - Dec 03, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
  • rate
  Really? I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and its sister projects like Wikinews, and I've never noticed any organized gestapo. There is the occasional out of control admin, but eventually they get dealt with.
  
  Occasional rogue admins are common on any site that uses volunteer admins (like gaming sites), and Wikipedia is of course no different. You just have to work around them on the rare times you encounter such people, which usually isn't hard:).
  
  If you're encountering a lot of resistance to your edits from other editors (and admins as well for that matter), then I respectfully submit that the problem probably isn't with "all those other people"; the problem is with you.
  • flag
• brant - Dec 03, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
  • rate
  http://www.wikipe...tch.org/
  http://educate-yo...08.shtml
  Wikipedia Scanner
  http://virgil.gr/31.html
  
  The list goes on and on... They dont deserve the money until they monitor the admins....
  • flag
• gopher65 - Dec 03, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  • rate
  I've seen those sites before. Most of it is people posting articles like "OMG! Proof of Bigfoot!", linking to their personal webspace as a source, and then being mad when that gets deleted.
  
  As I said, their are some legitimate complaints that people have, but most of the complaints are just bunk.
  • flag
• earls - Dec 03, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 2.8 / 5 (4)
  • rate
  Wikipedia is a contender for one of the best sites on the entire Internet. If not THE.
  
  Those that give it flack just fear the spread of knowledge.
  
  As for criticisms of "truthiness," I think the Colbert stunts prove that there is a very high level of quality control, and any information consumed should be valuable to the utmost degree.
  • flag
• superhuman - Dec 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 2.5 / 5 (2)
  • rate

  Really? I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and its sister projects like Wikinews, and I've never noticed any organized gestapo. There is the occasional out of control admin, but eventually they get dealt with.

  
  
  Slim virgin and friends? Jimbo and his circle? The problem is quite real in some areas of wiki as all it takes to overpower others is numbers.
  
  Luckily such people mostly concern themselves with popular topics and scientific articles (of which I am a frequent reader) are left alone.
  
  So there certainly are some black sheep but all in all they are far outnumbered by great many good editors. I've learned quite a lot reading wiki and it was often the knowledge which would be difficult to locate otherwise so I believe the project as a whole has tremendous value and I completely support it.
  • flag
• morpheus2012 - Dec 08, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
  • rate
  oh u mean
  
  wikipedia censoring propaganda is geting bit loose
  
  doe to popular presure?
  • flag
• morpheus2012 - Dec 08, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
  • rate
  the gestapo is so sbutile
  
  ofcourse 99.99 procent od the dumb sheet cant even notice it if its straigh in there face
  
  aka you probably
  • flag