[phdtree]

Anonymous editing is a real problem for Wikipedia. There are already numerous "edit wars" by anonymous editors - mostly on ideological/political issues, but also celebrity people changing articles about them to remove criticism, for example. These abuses/debates will likely continue to get worse. That's why we at phdtree wiki project (http://phdtree.org/) don't allow anonymous editing.

What Wikipedia needs is a good karma system, like the one used by HN.

[erkose]

Blah! Shameless plug. PR firms employ real people to edit web content to reflect clients favorably.

[jamesmcbennett]

They do, but no surprise that they do.

Had a really interesting conversation the other night about sites that offer consumers an honest ranking of things such as a place to eat. When they monetise through businesses that care little for the honest rankings and only desire strength for their own personal ranking, there is a conflict of interest. When power is placed completely in hands of consumer, power corrupts them too as they demand a free meal otherwise leaving a bad comment despite recieving good service. I have talked to hotel managers who have been threatened with bad comments despite no problem in service and had no choice but to not charge for the room due to the dishonesty.

The big question here is how do sites generate a site that is honest providing a good service that can be monetised successfully and cannot be gamed by either business or consumer. Any good examples?

[DanBC]

The research is clear - the majority of anonymous edits are good edits.

[vacri]

HN's karma system is awful.