“We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks,” said Michael Snow, a lawyer in Seattle who is the chairman of the Wikimedia board. “There was a time probably when the community was more forgiving of things that were inaccurate or fudged in some fashion — whether simply misunderstood or an author had some ax to grind. There is less tolerance for that sort of problem now.”
That quote is from a NY Times article on Wikipedia (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?th&emc=th). The article notes a definite change in Wikipedia editorial policy. The article states: "The change is part of a growing realization on the part of Wikipedia’s leaders that as the site grows more influential, they must transform its embrace-the-chaos culture into something more mature and dependable."
A new feature is being added, called "flagged revisions", which will require that an experienced Wikipedia volunteer review any changes to articles on living people before the changes are published.
Wikipedia is often our first resource for general information, if nothing else, because it usually has something about any topic. But because the articles are unsigned, I have always been very skeptical of seeing Wikipedia cited on any paper or exam, preferring to use the footnotes and citations for further research and validation.
Is this new policy a step towards a more reliable source of information? Or is it a kind of censorship, and restriction on free speech? What do you think?