Wikipedia to Impose New Restrictions on Editing

About time

I agree, too many times have i checked something there and seen total BS, while funny.. it is distracting..people need to grow up...just a little bit.

Yes, I did edit an article. I said the Earth was flat.

i ask one question why wikipedia banned me

[IMG]http://i29.tinypic.com/34dipti.jpg[/IMG]

what i had do ..........

When my friend and i were doing a report about something i edited Wikipedia to say something pretty bad about him...a few minutes passed, i then told him to look at what wikipedia said. He flipped shit when he got about half way down the page. i then deleted what i wrote and refreshed his page. After he settled down from flipping out (he was nowhere near the computer)i asked him what the problem was. He said the computer was possessed because now it didnt show anything but what we were researching.

sneaky sneaky sneaky

In the past I did find it fun to edit several topics, while Wikipedia needed 6 mods to undo my editing. At a certain time the mods where undoing other moderator's modifications!
That was fun, but I hardly visit wikipedia anymore these days.
If I need to know something, I prefer going to more specialized websites to get my info.

The last 3 times I added some (beneficial) addition to Wikipedia even that was undone by a mod who seem like not many people agree with, and who loves deleting other people's work.

I stopped giving any input to wikipedia at all. What you may think is important, is not for another. In the end you just waste your time editing things another undoes.

I called a model a Skank. Is that a problem?

Perhaps the new policy will help. In the past I have come across information about people that did not seem to be very accurate.

If you use Wikipedia to air your grievences or screw with your friends, get a life and grow up.

That said, I don't presume to know enough about anything in particular to go editing Wikipedia all the time. I usually just correct typos or update out of date facts, that sort of thing. I did add a description to a couple of the competitions listed for MXC, they were desperately lacking.

Three words: Jackie Jormp Jomp.

And when will Wikipedia delete articles that are pure fantasy like these written by Turkish nationalists that have nothing to do with reality and only serve the pan-Turkish propaganda?

A few years ago I've edited an articled then a guy comes and deletes my writings and he argues that I have cited no sources. I give him sources I've even copied text from another articles in Wikipedia and he still deleted it. The only reason he actually did that for me was pure ignorance. At the same time there were other facts in the article that had absolutely no original sources but he didn't touch them.

I still read Wikipedia and hope it is not one of the the biggest scams in the World.

zingam, I have found it quite reliable for the subjects that I procure regularly. I used it as a catalyst for my thoughts extensively while I was in graduate school (I always sought out real references in papers and in the thesis, however).

Most of the time I just edit other people's grammar mistakes. The most common mistake I find is the split infinitive ("to better understand" is wrong; it should be "to understand better") as well as the ambiguous pronoun (when talking about a compound subject consisting of two males, a subsequent reference to "he" can be confusing).

Michael Rivero of blogosphere fame had some "mystery editors" make inaccurate edits about him, then his page was locked, and he was not allowed to edit it because he was "not an expert" on himself. Then it got deleted. Wikipedia is rigged, plain and simple.

Thanks Dave_69 for those examples. I've been guilty of the first one.

As doomtomb stated, about time. I did about two weeks of research on a person and decided to update the Wikipedia article so that it had the information I learned including sources. The article was pretty hidden (search doesn't return it unless you use the correct keywords, haven't figured out keyword searches yet) so I didn't expect it to change often. 10 minutes later the whole article had been replaced by a rant by someone who hated people who change articles. I erased it back to it's original (my edit) and not 5 minutes later it was replaced random key presses by someone different. It will be good having some of these stupid edits denied.

I think too many people consider Wikipedia as reliable source.
Wikipedia is good to have some general info about a subject or a person you have never heard about before but not for really precise information.
There are always people to say something is true because they have seen it in wikipedia! wow

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What about articles for people who are recently deceased? I saw this for Ted Kennedy early this morning: screen cap

lol, one time on the page about "cream style corn," (a short page that would not be looked at much.) I felt the need to inform the public of the subtle misunderstanding between Cream Corn and Mashed potatoes. I described the difference being that mashed potatoes are moldy, which is bad. I tipped off some of my friends about the new information added, however, my highly informative addition was ixnayed a couple weeks later. Hope some people were enlightened at least.

i never used wikipedia , every sicne i started school at teh art institute onlien , the school had said time adn tiem again DONT research on wikipedia , it is an unreliable source . end of story

At least it means that people who aren't able to comprehend grammar and spelling will be kept from defacing pages with their MSN language..