Do you think Wikipedia needs something like contributor names or email

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

addresses on their contributions, to provide some kind of limited accountability to what people put on there?

Right now I have trouble ever citing anything from there because of the relative lack of editorial control. The knowledge that some idiot could post distortions, propaganda, or just outright false content.

I realize, like the internet in general, that this is both the strength AND the weakness of a format like Wikipedia...

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. kick

[tx_dem41]

2. People would just give fake names or fake or temporary yahoo..

email addresses.

Good intent though.

[Tesha]

3. You mean you don't want to know that "Bob is *SOOOO* gay!"?

That's the common sort of vandalism that gets inserted by 12 year old
kids posting via anonymous IP addresses from the computers at their
schools/public libraries/etc.

More subtle, of course, is the sort of sparring that goes on in any
article about any controversial topic (such as "Roe v. Wade",
"George W. Bush", or "Democratic Underground"). Such articles may
whip-saw back and forth minute-by-minute between two completely
different (and equally invalid) points-of-view.

Yes, Wiki is still a definite expermient in progress with no clear
outcome yet. Right now, I'd say:

o Generally trust the technical content,
o Read the historical/geographical content with the appropriate
grains of salt waiting at the ready, and
o Generally distrust the political content.

Tesha