Like this wasn’t destined to happen, finally Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has announced some new changes that will lock down some of the capabilities for anonymous users.

Thus, to avoid future problems, Wales plans to bar anonymous users from creating new articles; only registered members will be able to do so. That change will go into effect Monday, he said, adding that anonymous users will still be able to edit existing entries.

These changes were a reaction to two recent issues with the system and piggyback on Wikipedia issues cited last month and general policies and procedures Wales said they were looking into back in August.

Wikipedia has gotten a lot of (mostly negative) press this last week due to Adam Curry anonymously making edits to the history of podcasting and an op-ed piece in USA Today pointing out that a bogus Wikipedia article suggested that a former assistant of Robert Kennedy may have been involved in two assasinations.

I think eventually more changes will be required to keep “anyone” from being able to alter the Wikipedia articles. And the more changes that reduce the ability for anyone to be able to change/edit material will make the project less about anyone and more about certain people. And the more limiting that is done, the more bias that could seap into the material.

The problem isn’t that there is a growing group of volunteers to correct errors and ban malicious users, the problem is that these people are, in fact, volunteers. What is Wales and company going to do if the volunteers don’t weed out stuff like the USA Today article pointed out?

More policy changes. Tighter restrictions. This road seems to be leading to a future with an encyclopedia that is created by only specific volunteers in the world instead of professional librarians and historians. Put me in the crowd that is not convinced that this road is worth travelling.

I don’t use Wikipedia that often. Do you? I always thought the site and idea had an underlying flaw, not to mention being backed by a completely unfriendly user interface but I still believe the concept and spirit are cool. In theory anyway. In practical, real world use? Sure taking a lot of bullets, isn’t it?

The reality is one can only go so far with managing and operating anything with a team of volunteers, especially online. I’m not down on volunteers in general for many, many things in this world, but a system of the entire world being a Borg-like collective of online volunteer librarians might just be an unrealistic goal in an age where spammers, trolls and miscreants flourish and could be editing out history. Not to mention people who were actually a part of history editing their own involvement, as Curry had tried to do. Yes, the system caught him. And yes he was flogged in the public square for his admitted misdeeds, but the media and bloggers aren’t going to pick up on every case of Wikimisdeedia.

And as for running a wiki without a community of volunteers or paid help to monitor it? Expect that thing to be spam bait faster than you can find the definition of wiki. My opinion remains unchanged: Wikis more often than not suck.

I still like the Wikipedia concept and wish Wales the best of luck, but I really am doubting this thing can take too many more credibility hits before the volunteers become the volunteered.

Then down comes the house.

• Curry busted, admits to Wiki podcast history editing
• Wikipedia tightens the editorial screws
• Wikistress defcon 5
• Wikipedia battles with itself
• First Wikipedia, now Wikinews
• Wikipedia socially inept or socially accurate?