It’s been announced (although it was known on the site for months) that enWikipedia will start using the ‘flagged revisions’ system on biographies of living people. The usual old media suspects have come out of the woodwork to assert that this is the end of the encyclopedia’s open culture epitomised in its strapline “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”. Even the normally passable New York Times takes this ‘necessary evil’ line:

Now, as the English-language version of Wikipedia has just surpassed three million articles, that freewheeling ethos is about to be curbed. (Noam Cohen, NY Times 2009-08-24)

In fact, in the specific area to which it is being applied (biographies of living people), Flagged Revisions will actually result in increased openness. The reality is that any edits by unregistered users are already scrutinised by what are known as ‘recent change patrollers‘, and reverted if there is even the slightest doubt as to their accuracy – particularly in biographies which are covered by a ’shoot first, ask questions never‘ policy imposed on the community by the Wikimedia Foundation. This institutional paranoia means that many biographies are ’semi-protected’ (only editable by registered users with existing accounts) or ‘protected’ (not editable by anyone, except the Foundation’s approved inquisitors) for the sole reason that some idiot might insert an inaccurate statement. ‘Flagged revisions’ will mean that this elitism can no longer be justified: the tool enables anyone to edit articles without a risk of vandalism being visible.

Wikipedia has many flaws – the use of popularity contests to replace its core principles for example, or the Foundation’s special people abusing privacy-violating tools to stop disliked candidates winning community elections – but Flagged Revisions is actually one of the better ideas to be piloted by the Foundation in recent years.