Wikipedia hopes to make editing user-friendly
December 3, 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:
Grant awarded to improve the security of mobile devices and cellular networks
19 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Engineers image nanostructure of a solid acid catalyst and boost its catalytic activity
Nov 09, 2009 |
5 / 5 (3) |
2
Google snaps up mobile ad startup for $750 million (Update)
Nov 09, 2009 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Expanding drug treatment: Is US ready to step up?
Nov 08, 2009 |
not rated yet |
1
W. Africa's last giraffes make surprising comeback
Nov 08, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0



Heck, I would have been happy to tell them this to help them improve contributions, and all I would have charged is $890.00!
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.
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....
As I said, their are some legitimate complaints that people have, but most of the complaints are just bunk.
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.
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.
wikipedia censoring propaganda is geting bit loose
doe to popular presure?
ofcourse 99.99 procent od the dumb sheet cant even notice it if its straigh in there face
aka you probably