Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
I just was searching about Prophet Muhammad since the international ambient is so agitated because of the caricatures published in a Danish news paper, and others.
What I find is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Muhammad
I don't know who or when it has been modified to reflect that.
I don't see what you witnessed. The site looks corrected.
Wikipedia is just that though, it is open for people to post the definitions. Not to hard to "hack" an open system if you have signed up.
Please post what you saw.
#1 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:32 AM ESThttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&action=history
it looks like the article is a prime target for vandalism
#2 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:39 AM ESTIt looks like it was vandilism that was quickly fixed. You can see the change in the page history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&oldid=381570041
#3 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:39 AM ESTYou don't have to sign up, it's a wiki. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
#4 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 1:23 PM ESTYes, it has been fixed now but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Muhammad and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad were redirected to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/@!$%#
I should have done a screenshot.
#5 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 1:40 PM ESTActually the Newsvine system corrected the last word of the URL. It said "S H I T"
#6 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 1:42 PM ESTYou don't have to sign up, it's a wiki.
Well, Wikipedia has recently instigated a semi-protection policy to be used on popular articles with a lot of anonymous abuse. It keeps anonymous users and users with a few-days-old accounts (it's actually the last 1%, but it works out to a few days) from editing the article, which helps immensely with some stuff. It doesn't appear to be enabled on the Muhammad article currently, but may be on a few others.
#8 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 3:35 PM ESTYes, it has always had a full protection ability though. This new semi-protection was misrepresented in almost all media, including digg etc. The semi-protection feature won't be used any more than full protection, but in different cases. It's likely most occasional users of wikipedia have never come across a protected page, likewise most people will probably never see a semi-protected page. This is a non-event, like 95% of the other "stories" about wikipedia.
#9 - Sat Feb 4, 2006 6:42 PM ESTI'm not sure what you meant by "hacked." Anyone was free to register and edit that page.
#10 - Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:50 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
