for a resource to include factually incorrect data is very annoying, this ranting about the restriction of information is rather x-files to be honest.

i would welcome vetting of the information, for accuracy. and the companies that are being written badly about, will if unable to alter the report themselves look to the courts.

that said the questioning of who is going to be a "trusted editor" is pertinant.

history is written by the victors, sorry that is how history is, wikipedia falls down in the anonimity of the web, if the government issues a statement, then thier bias can be estimated, the same with coporations. this cannot be done with an online alias.

probably both a good and a bad thing in terms of content

Ben, foklkestone, uk

"while if it is later edited by other users their ranking will slip"

So, posting in anything remotely topical or that will change over time is a good way to lose the ability to edit. Nice.

Leon Wolfeson, Oxford, UK

It would be useful if we could read a history of the changes behind a current article to get a flavour of what is happening to the entries. You might then find that an individual would ping pong between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" before eventually becoming elder statesman (insert your favorite hero/heretic).
I am reminded of my father's recollection that before the war, a major German encyclopaedia was offered for exchange for the preceding edition at a knockdown price. Apparently, in the new edition many historically Polish territories became historically German territories. Of course my recollection is second hand and therefore hearsay, but the principle is sound.

Richard Majewicz, Peterborough, UK

Bravo! I, also, am concerned that people who may have some political axe to grind will have control of a well-meaning website that claims to be "factual". Jesse
Monroe, Wi. USA

Jesse, Monroe, Wi.

The German Wikipedia has been planning this change for well over a year. The New Scientist article says they'll start this month; good for them, but I won't hold my breath.

Meanwhile, Citizendium still has the far superior content production model. We don't have to approve each edit, because each contributor uses his or her own identity, and because the whole thing is gently guided by editors and constables.

We're growing nicely, too. Nearly 3,000 articles and 5 million words in less than a year, and we are poised to expand greatly this fall, too.

Larry Sanger, Columbus, Ohio

Thats the internet for you.

m.J., Iowa, U.S.A.

Larry is just lamenting the fact that not just anybody can edit Wikipedia anymore. So what we'll read is what "the powers that be" let us read.

In other words, the lunatic fringe with their "interesting" take on historical and political events have lost the only platform where they can disseminate their views with some semblance of authority.

This is a welcome change to Wikipedia.

Phil, Oxford, UK

Isn't Wiki an acronym for Wish I Knew It?

Jason , Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Its typical of todays social environment. For every person who wants to enhance a community there are 2 who want to destroy it with misinformation and mindless vandalism. Wikipedia is unfortunatly a victim of this - what a shame, as this collective portal for information on almost everything is such a valued resource.

Frank Curland, Edinburgh, Scotland

Larry what on earth are you talking about?

Morgan, Hartford, Connecticut, USA

"History (as alluded herein) is written by the victors". What began as a valiant effort to enable those cognizant of the real 'facts', behind that which is generally accepted knowledge, though denied the means to publish for general consumption - has itself fallen to the self interests of those with the power to suppress and those who merely wish to to pervert.

"If a tree falls in a forest, and no one (human) hears it, does it make a sound?" What of those creatures not capable of bearing documented witness?

Must we always wait until perpetrators publish their memoirs or speak from their death beds before the true story behind historical events are made known to the general public?

Wikipedia WAS a venue to bring out what may've been known only to one or a few 'insiders'. Now, lacking corroboration by recognised 'experts', though they may not be completely silenced (i.e.: weblogs) - their knowledge will reach a smaller audience and we all lose in the process.

Larry, Middletown, USA/NY

Who is trusted editor?

I see many wrong information from time to time and I tried to edit a few of them along the way. Most of the time historical facts and political contents are abused by people who have control.

James, Toronro, Canada