The logs are there - there's the edit history. You can see all changes (by default) unless the admin has specifically removed the edit history and I believe those leave a note saying the edit history was tampered with. (They do it to remove links to child porn and things like that.)
So, the logs are there - but nobody regularly checks them. I can't even remember the last time I checked an article's edit history unless I was prompted to do so by someone else.
The truth is that we shouldn't be citing Wikipedia in the first place. We should be examining the links at the bottom and actually citing the primary sources - but we have come to use it as a citation source.
In ye olden days, you didn't cite the physical copy of the encyclopedia. It's not an authoritative source. You cited the material that the encyclopedia lead you to - citing primary resources and research papers, data, etc...
Well I think thats a losing battle. The ease of access the internet has given us to information even if its wrong has lead to people taking the path of least resistance and people like you and my self who seek out the truth at any cost will always find it but the masses thats a tough nut to crack.
I kind of have an idea.
It should be pretty easy to take GreaseMonkey (there's different names for different browsers, but it's pretty much available for most modern browsers) and make a script for it that highlights anything that's recently changed and highlights anything that has been changed above a certain threshold number of times within a certain specified date range.
So, if it has been edited within the past 7 days - highlight it. (mouseover to see edit history) If it has been edited (or reverted) more than twice in the past 30 days - highlight it. (again with mouseover)
But, I'm not sure how to get people to use it and how to make people actually pay attention to it.
Well getting people to use it and pay attention too it is simple marketing if you have a product that meets a niche and is better than your competitors then people will use it. If I've learned nothing else in my career its that. First to market is valuable of coarse but if someone comes along and makes something that wipes the floor with what you have and you don't innovate the new product will take market control. Perhaps we do need to make a competitor if for no other reason than to force wikipedia to innovate.
They could easily break/block it with a little effort, that will force people to update their GM script and will eventually stop by getting bored.
(post is archived)