(CNN takes a look at the ‘wonder’ of Wikipedia’s WikiTrust)
For those of you still stuck in 2003, Wikipedia has released its super-uber “WikiTrust” system for use on all its platform. The color-coded system will show readers how much Wikipedia trusts the content. The longer the content stays on the page, the more Wikipedia trusts the content, the lighter the color gets around the content. The more Wikipedia trusts the editor, the quicker the editor’s content is trusted.
A blend of Amazon, DMoz, Digg and even Google’s trust systems.
C-HO Mesothelioma Rating: 5 out of 10
Wikipedia continues to try to compete with his older brother, Britannica. Despite all its accomplishments, instead of accepting the fact that it will never be a resource that can be used in news stories and academic works, Wikipedia continues to fight for validity.
And Wikipedia is trying to tighten the reins on its users with procedures. Such procedures create factions. Ask Digg users. If they aren’t liked by the 200-300 members of Digg’s “inner circle,” their stories never make it to the front of the page no matter how good they are.
And because Wikipedia is using a Google-ish algorithm and trust, the content will be more about how to optimize for Wikipedia than it will be about the content.
So, scamming Wikipedia to get your content a “clear color” will be a little bit Google and a little bit Digg.
1) Build up quality content. Wikipedia tracks their editors content and edits. A good solid history will help your edits. As mentioned before, long-time editors already have this point covered.
2) Get good editors to look over your content. Like Google’s Page Rank, if you get good editors to look over and validate your content your content will be quicker to clear content.
3) Find good editors. Why wait for good editors to find the content when you can (gasp) pay for it? Not every Wikipedia editor is an altruist. Some make a living off of it. Put an add in Craigslist and see what happens.
4) Think twice before giving a sh*t about WikiTrust. Ask yourself, “Is Wikipedia worth the time of day to p*ss about?” WIth DMoz, you can get a backlink. With Digg, you can get backlinks once they trust you. But with Wikipedia, they horde all their Page Rank.
In its attempt to because a trusted academic resource, Wikipedia is creating fraternalization – creating division. If Wikipedia wants to be Britannica, Wikipedia should structure its platform more around Britannica. If Wikipedia wants to keep their platform as an open collective, Wikipedia will have to keep watchdogging the content instead of hoping a system will do it for them.
