There was no "lengthy process" wrt the Seigenthaler issue. The entry was made anonymously. It was not linked to any other entry on the system. It was only edited once. Because it was made anonymously and not linked, no one was watching it for changes. It sat there. Anyone who found it could've changed it but no one did. It could only be found by explicitly searching on the site for Seigenthaler's name. He did this and flipped. He complained to Wikipedia and they were IMMEDIATELY on alert. They edited the entry within a few hours and even volunteered to remove the entire history because entries should not be made in such a defamatory way. They also decided to make it impossible for new entries to be made anonymously because they want all entries to have people watching them (a formal process where people are alerted to changes to the article). *THEN* Seigenthaler wrote the USAToday piece complaining. Once Wikipedians were alerted, it was changed in hours. But no one altered someone because it was probably not seen by anyone. Seigenthaler is not that well known today and it's doubtful folks have been searching for him. Anyone could've altered the system by marking this as a problematic entry. No one did. Anyone could've informed Wikipedia and they would've changed it; no one did. For the vast majority of articles, there are people watching them, watching EVERY change. When people wipe an entry, or add biases, it changes within minutes. MINUTES. For the articles that are small, unlinked and anonymous, they're effectively invisible. This is what needs to change more than anything else. And this is what is changing. The hysteria around the Seigenthaler case is ridiculous. I have lots of problems with Wikipedia but this is a hyped up situation that is so on the margins of the norm that it's foolish, not strong. On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:27 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
My strong stand on this case is simple. There seems to be no good way to correct seriously damaging information in a swift, rapid manner.