can freeze the page, I think, for review.

some sort of oversight over there that does not allow articles to be edited or removed because someone doesn't like the info contained in them. That's considered to be "revisionist history". The 'Rethugs do it all the time, and so does FAUX. We all know that.

If this kind of thing goes on over there, and has been going on over there (something I've seen in the past), then why should I find them to be a credible source of anything, even if they do get more things right than not?

This tarnishes them overall. It puts a big-league hurt on their credibility, and it doesn't make me a "rightie" to say that.

Microsoft learned that malicious behavior was exploiting weaknesses in their software and was forced to devote considerable resources to this problem. Wikipedia is faced with a similar problem.

Righties constantly say wikipedia has no crediblity, simply because there is no 'unitary executive' running wikipedia that gets to spin the "truth" in a given direction.

That's actually kind of funny.  I've never met anyone who thinks wikipedia has credibility.

That turn-it-on-its-head statement reminds me of the exchange in The Russia House (an underrated movie and excellent soundtrack, in my opinion), wherein Blair (Sean Connnery) is being interviewed by a group of MI5 and CIA  questioners about a Soviet leak:

Interrogator: Have you ever met any jazz musicians you would describe, or who would describe themselves, as anarchists?

Blair: Hmmm... ah, there was a trombone player, Wilfred Baker.

[The interrogators start writing feverishly]

Blair: He's the only jazz musician I can think of who is completely devoid of anarchist tendencies.

[The interrogators lay their pencils down and look up at Blair sheepishly]

Wikipedia is fine to look up some things such as the biography of an obscure actor or the meaning of slang or stuff like that.  For anyone to rely on it as an authoritative source on anything controversial or technically complex would be a serious mistake.  It isn't just that Wikipedia is wrong -- probably 75 percent or more of the information there is correct -- it's just that it can be wrong as easily as it can be right, and there's no way for an uninformed person using it as their sole source of information to discriminate between the two.

That Wikipedia program in the functions of the Wikipedia Scanner that revealed these edits.

Transparency, the ability to view the edits and know who is editing is more practical and more valuable than censoring the edits.

If you restrict the ability for user editing you destroy the concept that Wikipedia is based on. It is a user built encyclopedia.

If you block certain entities from editing or restore the edited text then who is deciding who can edit or which items get restored? What if that person was a far right republican? This would put Wikipedia in the position of being the arbiter of disputes, a position they neither want nor can they afford.

Wikipedia is actually pretty good for the vast majority of information. If you look up something non-controversial like 'Victor Wooten' or 'natural logarithms' you get good information. Wikipedia marks entries without references or with vague references.

If you are looking up 'Bill O'Reilly' on a user edited site, you should be questioning the where the information comes from. If you believe everything you read well then maybe you are Brit Hume.

If users had the ability to view the edited text and see who is editing it, the function that the Wiki Scanner makes easier, then they can judge for themselves. The knowledge that someone is changing a site is information too, sometimes valuable. The knowledge that Fox News is sanitizing wikipedia is another confirmation of their efforts to distort information.

Even with screen names and IP spoofing, the knowledge that someone has edited entries can be valuable. If someone has gone in and removed all negative references to Bill O'Reilly you probably know that it wasn't Al Franken.

The other aspect that needs to be brought to light is that wikipedia is not unique. You should also be asking yourself who is editing the other printed material that you read. Just being in a book doesn't make it factual either.

every time I've been to a Wiki edit page, I see screen-names, I don't see real names. For all we know, Wiki editors could be editors in RL, too. What if some of them hold editorial positions at publishing houses that produce American education-system-approved school textbooks?

to question who decides what "credible" is, or to state that "credibility" left in the hands of hacks from FAUX, tarnishes an otherwise decent resource. Because it DOES.

Now, if Wikipedia wants to get out of the business of accepting entries about "current events" that are subject to interpretation, or info on notable people whose reputation might be at risk if disinformation was allowed to stand, that might be a good idea.

Obviously, "credible" is in the eye of the beholder. But this smacks of partisanship, too, and it's crap.

somewhere in here, I make the suggestion that they should stick to 'factual subjects' and leave 'controversial stuff' out.

Simple--if a page generates way too much heat, get rid of it. That'll help their credibility, and it will keep them from having to arbitrarily determine what is "fair", "true" or "factual" when talking about something like "Criticism of George W Bush".

WP actually has quite a few policies on such issues. One of the strongest quality requirements are laid down in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Those apply in most cited articles, and basically, from my point of view, the Fox person didn'td delete enough. Those articles are still an embarassment for WP and should be replaced with stubs until someone comes along and writes real biographical articles.

remember that if you find a useful version of an article and it disappears, you can find it on the Wayback Machine.