Nope.

Seems like good quality administration to me.

His name is Jimbo, not Jimmy. Now if only I could correct Yahoo's editorial content....

hm... apparently it's both.

Damn, I'm pretty sure Jimbo's a dude I used to argue with a bit many years ago when I used to hang around an Objectivist newsgroup (anthropologically, of course).

One of the very few really smart ones I've encountered.

So get in your updates now while you have a chance.

Why not just send the frozen articles through an administration process when they're updated?

Yes, it's a failure of the concept. But seriously - anyone with half a brain would realize that having a blank slate for an internet encyclopedia would fall victim to the tragedy of the commons at some point.

However, it's not a failure of wikipedia in and of itself - it's a natural evolution of the wikipedia. The next step in a proper internet evolution should be a massive flamewar somewhere over a political difference regarding moderation.

Yes. They have failed to patent the editing of online content to prevent counter organizational goals.

Wikipedia's organisation based on aristocracy is just creaking at the seams a little because its growing faster than new aristos can be trusted and elevated to police the content and disputes.

Hence Jimbo's proposal (interesting its a proposal he's maintaining his philosophy of not simply imposing his will).

I don't think he's going to do this to all the pages. Probably just the ones that get repeatedly vandalized.

Turns out Yahoo got it wrong.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050806-5176.html

Thank god.

Or rather - Jimbo.