Online encyclopedia Wackypedia has given up on its policy about allowing people to write what they like. Instead Jimmy Wales says that his chums, an inner core of editors, will decided who writes what when it comes to writing about people.

Membership of this inner core is unknown. Some of them have been known to fake their doctorates and others have had personal grudges against some of the subjects they 'edit'. But Wackypedia has a problem that people keep changing entries on famous people for a laugh. Wikipedia’s entry on John Seigenthaler Sr. once connected him falsely to two assassinations for example.

Dubbed “flagged revisions,” each change will require that “an experienced volunteer editor” for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved, or in Wikispeak, flagged, it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version. What could possibly go wrong. One of the criticisms of Wackypedia is that its quack team of editors are bunch of losers who get a buzz out of declaring famous people as being insignificant and slashing or deleting entries.

Some of these editors use Wackypedia to cull entries on people who work for rival companies or magazines that they don't like. One victim of this was former Inquirer and Register editor Mike Magee, who despite being at the forefront of the online IT news phenomena was declared insignificant in a campaign which seemed mostly fueled by Daily Tech readers.

The current writer was described by Wackypedia as a Canadian boxer for some time for the same reason.

Michael Snow, a lawyer in Seattle who is the chairman of the Wikimedia board said that there was a time when the community was more forgiving of things that were inaccurate or fudged in some fashion. whether simply misunderstood or an author had some ax to grind. There is less tolerance for that sort of problem now.

However what he does not seem to realise is that the casual editors were acting as a bulwark against editors who seem to love their godlike powers to decide who is famous and what they can be famous for. Mike Magee for example was eventually allowed an entry that said he was a tech journalist but was not allowed to mention his recognised ability as an expert on Tantra, because the editor thought that “must be another Mike Magee”.