There's a wikipedian event called Wikimania 2008 happening in Alexandria, Egypt from 17-19 July. One of the main topics discussed is something called "flagged revisions", an experiment that's already taken place in some iterations of Wikipedia - its German version, for instance. Simply put, it means that no changes will appear on Wikipedia without the approval of an expert.
Without going into the technical implications of this obviously large-scale operation, or even the problems that might arise when you try to define who's "expert" in what field, the main thing that interests me is this: will this make Wikipedia just another boring encyclopedia?
I know that Wikipedia has problems with vandalism. I also know that it's not 100% accurate (no encyclopedia is, but Wikipedia is probably a bit worse with this regard). And I know about the issues of gaming Wikipedia, be it for fun or profit.
However, I've gotten used to this. I don't care if some jerk somewhere will change the national anthem of some country to a Morbid Angel tune. If it happens, the community will fix it soon; and if someone gets really offended and worked up in the meantime, well, that someone has too much time on his hands.
The experiment is being conducted carefully, which is a good thing. NYTimes writes:
"The Germans who are implementing the idea stress that the checkers are not a heavy hand, but are doing the most cursory examination to see that no curse words or obvious non sequiturs have been added. While some revisions can wait a day, usually they only take minutes, as checkers like Mr. Schindler spend hours going through lists of changes to approve.
Also, they point out that edits that haven’t been approved are still in the system and show up to anyone who later wants to make edits. So contributions would not be lost or overwritten as they wait for a checker to approve them."