Time reports today that the story was wrong. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales told the magazine that the changes being contemplated are minimal, and in fact look a lot like the old rules:
Wikipedia's ruling body of volunteers never decided to impose restrictions on all articles about living people. Instead, the site will adopt "flagged protection" — the new method for requiring editorial approval before changes to Wikipedia go up — for a small number of articles, most likely on a case-by-case basis.So the question is: Did the New York Times get the story wrong? Or is there a disagreement within the Wikipedia ranks about what kinds of rules need to be adopted?