The transparency is great, and would be a valulable addition to more professional sources, but in the end I don't think there is a lot to be found there ...
on wikipedia you can look behind the curtain and see who is editing
You can't see who it is, just some psuedonyms (possibly muliple ones for same person) and ip addresses. That's why somenone had to trace edits back to the NYPD, and even then we don't know the people. How many other things have we read in Wikipedia written by NYPD employees, for example -- we have no idea!
... and see who is editing what and see the discussion leading to what is in the articles ...
That's a lot to ask. Some of the discussions are very long and convoluted, and most are filled with noise (arguments on rules and conduct), and misinformation worse than the article, because the standards for the Talk pages are much lower.
Comments
The transparency is great, and would be a valulable addition to more professional sources, but in the end I don't think there is a lot to be found there ...
You can't see who it is, just some psuedonyms (possibly muliple ones for same person) and ip addresses. That's why somenone had to trace edits back to the NYPD, and even then we don't know the people. How many other things have we read in Wikipedia written by NYPD employees, for example -- we have no idea!
That's a lot to ask. Some of the discussions are very long and convoluted, and most are filled with noise (arguments on rules and conduct), and misinformation worse than the article, because the standards for the Talk pages are much lower.