Wikipedia Dust Up : Should Revisions Be Flagged and Then Approved

Wikipedia is no Encyclopedia Britannica, but that doesn't treat many from using it that way. But to be certain Wikipedia is a WIKI

No article in Wikipedia undergoes formal peer-review process and changes to articles are made available immediately. No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority. Except for a few vandalism-prone pages that can be edited only by established users, or in extreme cases only by administrators, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account, while only registered users may create a new article (only in English edition). Consequently, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content.

Now, the founder of Wikipedia , Jimmy Wales is suggesting a change in how information is posted and  many are finding  the proposal too restrictive and the antithesis of what the wiki is all about.

The back story: Recently, some people posted information about Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd that made it seem that the two senators had died. In response, Wales is saying that a review of changes to Wikipedia pages needs to occur before the new information is posted.

People are not greeting that suggestion with open arms.

One user posted that "Enabling Flagged Revisions will undoubtedly create backlogs that we will be unable to manage" while another said that there were "gaping holes in what you propose to do".

Mr Wales has now offered a compromise, asking those who were opposed to the changes to make "an alternative proposal within the next 7 days, to be voted upon for the next 14 days after that."

A system of flagged revisions has been used by the German Wikipedia site for almost a year. However critics say that the process is labour intensive and some changes can take days, if not weeks, to appear.
                                                                                                                               BBC NEWS

   

While there is so pushback on changing the process for posting to the world's most famous  Wiki , there are supporters of the new policy.,as Amanda Dolan commented on the BBC post,   "Anything that makes Wikipedia more accurate can only be advantageous ."

As much as I like the idea of the open access of Wikipedia, I like accurate information even more. Good Luck with that compromise.