Every site that can be random-user-edited or allow comments are infested with shills, grifters, astroturfers, scammers, spammers, propagandists within minutes. This only increases as the site gains popularity. What each site turns into depends on how it was engineered, how it is moderated and actively managed it is. To me personally I think that Wikipedia may have been purpose designed to let this happen or it would have stopped happening a long time ago. I am certain everyone here could each think of a dozen ways to minimize this behavior.

Just as one example if it were up to me the edited version invisible until a panel of moderators gives the edit a +1. If a sub-set of moderators give it a +2 (override) everyone can see who did that. Moderators would have to show real names and their country of origin and current country of residence. A watchdog group must be able to vote out moderators. If users try to overwhelm the moderators then they get perma-banned. I would probably not allow edits from wireless devices. Edits must be treated like changes to the Linux kernel and I want the original abrasive version of Linus back for this but that's just my personal preference.

▲

britta 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wikipedia has a range of protective mechanisms that admins can apply to high-traffic or frequently vandalized articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy

"Protection restricts the modification of pages to specific groups of users. Pages are protected when there is disruption that cannot be prevented through other means, such as blocks. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, and therefore aims to have as many pages open for public editing as possible so that anyone can add material and correct issues. This policy states in detail the protection types and procedures for page protection and unprotection, and when each protection should and should not be applied."

These mechanisms do include a "Pending changes" mode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes

	▲	Bender 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My understanding which could be misinformed is that this tool is selectively applied to articles that parties are not interested in. Of course this could be meant to make people distrust the platform but it could also be true. I for one will always assume the site is entirely fan fiction unless I can prove otherwise much like the SteamPunk artwork that people keep calling quantum computers.

▲

dgellow 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How familiar are you with Wikipedia processes? Asking because they are very sophisticated and definitely not « anyone’s can do anything unchecked », unless it is a page that isn’t visited much

▲

Bender 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Familiar enough I have seen organizations and companies gripe for its entire existence that they can't keep topics related to them accurate because there are non-stop edit wars. I also remember when Stephen Colbert mass edited and resurrected an extinct animal out of extinction using his audience on Wikipedia. There are plenty of examples of this being a disinformation platform that people can find if they look.

	▲	dgellow 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, there is for sure a lot of misinformation and drama. One of my favorite is this one: https://youtu.be/A48oR4Zc9ik?is=s3wjS0uFYZCI8xbC