Wikipedia not so democratic?

The New York Times
There's a lot of talk about wikis--Web sites where anyone can add, remove, or edit the content--these days. Skeptics who thought allowing people to mess with the content of a site would make it useless have been proven wrong by the power of Wikipedia, the online user-generated, user-policed encyclopedia. Then again, Wikipedia--which is by far the most popular and most important wiki site on the Web--has had to make a few concessions to make sure that its content stays correct. In fact, now, the bureaucratic structure of the Wikipedia online community is such that it's actually rather difficult to update content on the site. And it's only growing more bureaucratic, writes The New York Times. Some 82 entries were recently placed outside of the "anyone can edit" realm, including Christina Aguilera and Albert Einstein, due to repeated vandalism or disputes over what should be said. Another 179 entries, from George W. Bush to Islam to Adolf Hitler, were "semi-protected," allowing only registered users to edit them. It might look like Wikipedia is compromising its democratic ethos, but Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says that protection is usually temporary, and only affects a fraction of its 1.2 million English-language entries. One thing is sure: people trust the information on Wikipedia. According to Nielsen//NetRatings Wikipedia is the third most-popular news and information source, beating the likes of CNN and Yahoo News.

Read more