Wikipedia warning

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
54,903
Reaction score
1,518
If you use the Wikipedia website as a source of information, you need to be warned. The information on that site is very unreliable. The site is trying to tighten up its submission requirements but you should still be very careful about trusting anything that is posted there.

Wikipedia Tightens Entry-Submission Rules

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO — Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, is tightening submission rules after a prominent journalist complained that an article falsely implicated him in the Kennedy assassinations.

Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday. People who modify existing articles will still be able to do so without registering.

The change comes less than a week after John Seigenthaler, a one-time administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy, complained in an op-ed published in USA Today that a biography of him on Wikipedia claimed he had been suspected in the assassinations of the former attorney general and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia, often cited as a prime example of the type of collective knowledge-pooling that the Internet enables, has some 850,000 articles in English as well as entries in at least eight other languages, including Italian, French, German and Portuguese.

Since its launch in 2001, it has grown into a storehouse of information on topics ranging from medieval art to nanotechnology.

The volume is possible because the site relies on volunteers, including many experts in their fields, who submit entries and edit previously submitted articles.

Wales said he hopes the registration requirement will limit the number of articles being created.

While it would not prevent people from posting false information, the new process will make it easier, said Wales, for the site's 600 active volunteers to review and remove factual errors, defaming statements and other material that runs afoul of Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia visitors will still be able to edit content already posted without registering. It takes 15 to 20 seconds to create an account on the Web site, and an e-mail address is not required.

"What we're hopeful to see is that by slowing that down to 1,500 a day from several thousand, the people who are monitoring this will have more ability to improve the quality," Wales said Monday. "In many cases the types of things we see going on are impulse vandalism."

The episode demonstrates the lack of accountability that often comes with articles posted by anonymous people over the Internet. Unlike content included in magazines, books and other traditional media, online material can be submitted by just about anyone, often without having to volunteer any identifying information.

"I sympathize with this person, but it's really not any different than a posting on an anonymous Web page," Eugene Volokh, a law professor specializing in the First Amendment, said, referring to Seigenthaler.

Volokh added that Wikipedia provides casual readers with a valuable service, but that he would never rely on it as a source for scholarly articles.

Seigenthaler, USA Today's founding editorial director and a former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, said that after the op-ed was published Wikipedia's biography of him was changed to remove the false accusations.

But Seigenthaler said an entry on Monday still got some facts wrong, apparently because volunteers are confusing him with his son, a journalist with NBC News.

Also disturbing is a section of his biography that tracks changes made to the article, Seigenthaler said.

Entries in that history section label him a "Nazi" and say other "really vicious, venomous, salacious homophobic things about me," he said.

Wales said those comments would be removed.

For 132 days, Seigenthaler said, the biography of him falsely claimed that "for a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby."

The biography also falsely stated that he had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.


Seigenthaler said he wasn't convinced the new registration requirement would stop the practice of vandals posting content that is slanderous or knowingly incorrect.

Wikipedia will either have to fix the problem or will lose whatever credibility it still has, he said.

"The marketplace of ideas ultimately will take care of the problem," Seigenthaler said. "In the meantime, what happens to people like me?"
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,177740,00.html
 
Poster Admits Wikipedia Bio Hoax
Monday, December 12, 2005

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A man who posted false information on an online encyclopedia linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations says he was playing a trick on a co-worker.

Brian Chase, 38, ended up resigning from his job and apologizing to John Seigenthaler Sr., the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today.

"I knew from the news that Mr. Seigenthaler was looking for who did it, and I did it, so I needed to let him know in particular that it wasn't anyone out to get him, that it was done as a joke that went horribly, horribly wrong," Chase was quoted as saying in Sunday editions of The Tennessean.

Chase said he didn't know the free Internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia was used as a serious reference tool.

The biography he posted, which has since been replaced, falsely stated that Seigenthaler was linked to the Kennedy assassinations and had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984.

The entry motivated Seigenthaler to write an op-ed piece for USA Today blasting Wikipedia's credibility. He described himself as a close friend of Robert Kennedy and said he had worked with President Kennedy. He said "the most painful thing was to have them suggest that I was suspected of their assassination."

Seigenthaler said he doesn't plan to pursue legal action against Chase.

He also said he doesn't support more regulations of the Internet, but he said that he fears "Wikipedia is inviting it by its allowing irresponsible vandals to write anything they want about anybody."

Chase said he created the fake online biography in May as a gag to shock a co-worker who was familiar with the Seigenthaler family. He resigned as an operations manager at a Nashville delivery company as a result of the debacle.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,178415,00.html
 
It is good to know about something like this! Thank you, Reba, for posting it.
 
You are very welcome. :)

I was very surprised to see this in the news myself. I think too many people trust Wikipedia as a real source of information, and that they don't realize that the information is not "official."
 
I think Wikipedia CAN be used--IN CONJUNCTION WITH other sources. That's typically what I do if I'm researching. I may look at Wikipedia to try to get the basic lay of the land for a subject, but then I start to check more detailed sources. Most of the time I find that they do match up reasonably well, but I am always cautious to do other research. Personally, I think part of the responsibility (not all, but part) is on the researcher. This is true with any kind of researching, actually, with other sources. Consider "spun" stuff from major media outlets like TV and newspapers.
 
Rose Immortal said:
I think Wikipedia CAN be used--IN CONJUNCTION WITH other sources. That's typically what I do if I'm researching. I may look at Wikipedia to try to get the basic lay of the land for a subject, but then I start to check more detailed sources. Most of the time I find that they do match up reasonably well, but I am always cautious to do other research. Personally, I think part of the responsibility (not all, but part) is on the researcher. This is true with any kind of researching, actually, with other sources. Consider "spun" stuff from major media outlets like TV and newspapers.
My sentiments exactly. That approach could apply to our own beloved mainstream media, ain't that hell? For example, we have been rather vitrolic in denying the use of Napalm and Phosphorus bombs in Iraq, but recently the Pentagon admitted using those. It took a few years, but there you have it. The thing is, on the internet, you can find the truth.
I had a lot of respect for Snopes, but it turned out to be a disseminator of disinformation as well.
Just be careful and read widely and trust your instincts.
:)
 
Taking this one step further, you can should always verify any source of information. It never ceases to amaze how many "stories" get circulated that have no basis in fact. A typical example are the "urban hoaxs" that are often disseminated via the internet. You get perfectly rational people getting all riled up over a story that is not true. One first instinct is to ask if this is a true story (especially the crazier the story), then why hadn't I heard about it on the mainstream news. Stuff like this always makes it to the main news media (if true). Of course, the news media often gets it wrong as well.
 
Update :

Wikipedia hoaxer apologises

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday December 13, 2005
The Guardian

The author of a Wikipedia entry that falsely implicated a prominent writer in both Kennedy assassinations and prompted a row about the online encyclopaedia's reliability has apologised to his victim, saying that it was a "joke that went horribly, horribly wrong".

In a hand-delivered letter to journalist John Seigenthaler Sr, Brian Chase, an employee of a Nashville delivery company, said he inserted the false online biography as a prank on a co-worker. His contribution had falsely accused Mr Seigenthaler of having been linked to the assassination of John as well as Robert Kennedy, and of having lived in the former Soviet Union for 13 years.
:fruit:
 
I rarely use that website as a source of information cuz I have found some of it to be wrong. I do use it as a quick reference to help me get started with something else. ;)
 
Yea i found that interesting article about that. sometimes Wikipedia annoys me somewhere in the website's columns. i never look what is inside it. i use google.com every min or every hour or every day. it is a good search engine that can help me to find the right informations.
 
Back
Top