Changes

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==  

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==  

I believe that this one feature of WP is the single greatest factor causing WP’s decline and will largely cause its eventual destruction.  This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists).  It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the MMORPG character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction.  This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists).  It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has proved that there is indeed a reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''.  A number of members here (including myself) have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area.  WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on.  The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.

If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''.  A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area.  WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on.  The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted?  Absolute zero.  The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so.  His 2001  pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted?  Absolute zero.  The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so.  His 2001  pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]