<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia's spell over us wanes[/b]
Golden Gate [X]Press
Wikipedia, the fifth-most-visited Web site on earth, held a conference in August to discuss their plans to rule the world ...



View the article

This article makes it quite clear where the opposition to flagged revisions lies: Jimmy Wales.

I think this statement pinpoints a lot of what creates a lot of the problems with Wikipedia:



Wikipedia is a great resource, but it never will be an encyclopedia. It should quit trying to be what it is not and try to come to grips with what it is and build on that.

How did you draw that conclusion?


I'm skeptical that Jay Walsh said this.

I'm amazed you found anything clear in that article.

I was always under the impression that Erik was the leader of the no-flagged-revs cabal.

The quote from Jimmy in which Jimmy says that the flagged revision idea is "completely wrong". Yes, the article is pretty incoherent, but it jives with a tidbit I got from an inside source as well. The fact remains that Jimmy's opposed to flagged revisions, but won't come out in opposition to them because of the negative PR implications, so he is instead dragging his feet on them as long as possible. Hence the endless "working out the kinks" and related comments when asked why they haven't implemented yet.

Recent Jimbo statements have convinced me that Erik has swayed Jimbo to his point of view.

Which makes this statement in the article somewhat surprising, until you get to...

"The program will show edits on any page immediately after they're made"

Uh, what? Isn't that the opposite of what Flagged Revisions is supposed to do?

I'm not convinced that this article has anything coherent to say.