Given how many articles at Wikipedia get fake info posted to them (the Total Drama show, which I edit, has given me headaches all summer thanks to people believing what they read), I'm not surprised....

To prove a point to an idiot friend of mine who feels that Wikipedia is the be-all, end-all source of reliable information, I edited the page for the City of Montreal right in front of him. I added as a tourist attraction the wide variety of professionally installed potholes which could be found throughout the city. Some of them even offered burrow rides down to the bottom.

It took several days for my edit to be undone.

Like Michael Scott said on The Office, "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

I'm surprised it's taken Wikipedia this long to switch to an editor-based system

Hi Angus_Mac, I agree with you about crediting us on our guides. For instance I'm editor of The Gisele Mackenzie Show and I had the mods add that show here because nowhere on the net was a guide for the show, I got my information from newspapers, tvguides, etc. and compiled it, now Wikipedia has "The Gisele Mackenzie Show" listed which they never did with tv.com as a source. I do agree in part with Jekyll & Hooech that it's not the most reliable source, but I do think they are working at that.

I'm glad there will be some screening of content on Wikipedia.

Wow. Wikipedia with editors. Don't know if that will work.

Wiki with editors, huh? I would say that doesn't affect me directly, but c'mon... it's Wikipedia.

Well they need to do something about Wilkipedia I applaud any attempt to fix it and the wiggles that's an interesting move.

That might be good for Wiki. Then ppl can't just submit whatever they want. It will go threw a filter system. Being editor for The Wiggles would mean watching the show but that is a late time, or early. However you choose to look at it. Well you could tape it and watch it when it is more convenient. So you're Pacific Standard Time?

Wikipedia has its flaws but it can be useful as a general background reference source... as long as it is not seen as a primary source. Too many people make that mistake. Even established encyclopedias like Britannica and Americana should not be cited as primary sources either. I also know for a fact that some professional organizations devote some time to editing Wikipedia articles in their fields of expertise. Though there is a lot of garbage on celebrity and entertainment articles, the science articles are often quite good.

I think there's already a semi-editor system there. Many of the long-time contributors keep tabs on a specific set of articles and check to see if new contributions are accurate. While it's true that anyone can post junk on Wikipedia, there are many people constantly checking and removing that junk. I've done that many times myself, just while browsing through articles. Whenever I check the editing timeline, I find that I caught those phony edits within an hour of them coming online. This may be the case with many other cases of online vandalism.

Wikipedia has its place. I think it brings more positives than negatives. And even some of the entertainment articles are good places to catch up on topics quickly.