Do you think the changes made to Wikipedia's editing process are proper, or do they go against the original values of Wikipedia?

I think it’s a good idea. Some people have put things up on Wikipedia that either weren’t true or read more like an editorial that merely reflected that writer’s opinion. Not cool. There needed to be some sort of oversight.

I think it’s a good thing. I use wikipedia for valid information and a decent reference, I don’t want to spend my time reading something that I find out isn’t accurate.

I think it’s not-so-secretly been that way for a while. Good to see their formalizing it to be above board.

I agree with @robmandu, after recent rumours without these changes then Wikipedia will end up going under and the source of my knowledge will be no more.

I do think it kinda goes against wikipedia’s original philosophy a bit, but that’s not really a bad thing.

From the comments and articles I have seen about the original philosophy, the founders underestimated the quality of the entries made by the general public. They were just as surprised as the founders of Yahoo!Answers were with the flood of garbage, and have worked all along to maintain the integrity of the site.

I think they are vital. Especially because much of a non-discerning public does not even know to apply critical thinking to what they read on wikipedia.

@Marina non-discerning = good choice of word

I think it is a good move.

“Where did you get that info?” “I read it on Wikipedia.” “Oh, then it has to be true!”

Wikipedia has the manpower to do it, and it will only improve the quality of its content (might just be a little bit less up-to-date, but not so much that it actually affects you), which is in my opinion the main thing that should be looked at when judging decisions like this. (And that the content should still be made freely available.)