this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
599 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
58613 readers
4171 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah I mean I've had minor edits reversed because I didn't source the fact properly
And that was like 10 years ago I'm surprised these edits are getting through in the first place
Seems like that would be an easy problem to solve... require all edits to have a peer review by someone with a minimum credibility before they go live. I can understand when Wikipedia was new, allowing anyone to post edits or new content helped them get going. But now? Why do they still allow any random person to post edits without a minimal amount of verification? Sure it self-corrects given enough time, but meanwhile what happens to all the people looking for factual information and finding trash?
Or at least give it a certain amount of time before it goes live. So if nobody comes around to approve it in 24 hours, it goes live.
Usually bad edits are corrected within hours, if not minutes, so that should catch the lion's share w/o bogging down the approval queue too much.
Croudsourcing is the strenght that led to the vast resource and also the weakness as displayed here. So probably there will be a need for some form of barrier. Hence my suggestion.