Wikipedia prankster confesses

[occuserpens]

Interesting idea

Katharine Q.Seelye. Wikipedia prankster confesses http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html

It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with the joker quitting his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering a blow to its credibility.

A man in Nashville, Tenn., has admitted that, in trying to shock a colleague with a joke, he put false information into a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville.

Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Seigenthaler he had written the material suggesting Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.

Seigenthaler discovered the false entry only recently and wrote about it in an op-ed article in USA Today, saying he was especially annoyed that he could not track down the perpetrator because of Internet privacy laws.

[Cocoa]

1. what's the interesting idea?

?

[occuserpens]

17. To smear people using wiki

[Supersedeas]

43. wiki immunity for right wing nut jobs

[Rich Hunt]

47. no the interesting idea here is the old

'sabotage them within' tactic.

I don't know how ANYONE can say that Wikipedia shelters right-wingers, since the extreme right is always complaining about it. This is just an attempt to undercut its alleged credibility. Notice how these stories are accompanied by the outlandish statement that people are using it as 'a source'. Notice also they don't say WHICH people or HOW they're using it as 'a source'.

I've used Wikipedia - usually as a launching point for reading about things. Does that mean I am 'incompetent' and 'not qualified' to do research or work in a library? No - it just means I am using it to see what might be out there regarding a particular topic. These stories and their accompanying spin are undemocratic and insulting to users of Wikipedia, and whose tactic IS that?

Use of straw man = right wing tactic
Not giving specifics - names, instances = right wing tactic
Undermining what is essentially a democratic resource and unfairly attacking an experiment in progress
(i.e., being 'unfair' = right wing tactic)

[Book Lover]

2. What credibility?

Wiki is a bad idea that should never be used as an actual reference tool until they stop this nonsense of letting all comers make edits.

[KoKo]

3. Agree....I never could understand how the concept could work when

information can be overwritten. Seems it could work for researchers on projects like what Skinner seems to be doing with the DU Research Forum...but even then unless you have a very closed/known group how can one be sure that trolls or pranksters aren't writing over truthful facts with misinformation. :shrug: Would be very hard to monitor.

[Hypatia82]

12. Idea of wikipedia is...

that with enough people looking at it any errors will be noticed and corrected quickly. What's more since anyone can offer write anything, it's wide open to anyone with knowledge. It is knowledge how knowledge is supposed to be, egalitarian. Which in a world where people fight over the order of names on an academic journal submission, has become an overlooked thing.

[KoKo]

27. Oh...I understand the "Concept" of Wikipedia...but knowing how things

go when large amounts of "uncontrolled people" have access it can become a "free-for-all."

Not everyone can understand or abide by the "concept" of free access and free updating in the cause of "freedom of information."

An Example: When the FCC rules about "Equal Time" for dissenting views on TV were relaxed under Reagan and then done away with under Clinton's Repug Congress...in 1996 it opened the doors for Fox News and the RWingers to dominate the Airwaves.

So...in "concept" Wiki is noble. But, in practice it allows itself vulnerable to trolls and disinformation artists. :shrug: that's all I'm saying....

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. The concept has uncontrollable trolls built in

That's the very essence of the correction mechanism. The problem is that too many people think that a fact is a fact and that's that, and that knowledge is nothing but a collection of facts. As long as that stupid idea persists, we'll have similar problems. Of course, as you say, in practice the correction mechanism rarely catches everything. It works better with software, one would think.

But again, think of all the spurious shit that circulates in the public domain - every wacky conspiracy theory and crackpot idea. The idea that wikipedia should somehow "rise above" the general tendency in "knowledge production" is a high burden indeed. The second idea that information guardians should manage knowledge production in general is equally suspect - as if the imperialist shitbirds who constructed the early Encyclopedia Brittanica were somehow upright guardians of "objectivity." It should only take a cursory glance at the 1900 EB entries for various African locales to dispel that fallacious nonsense. Seems like the accepted methods don't work very well in practice either...

[Jackpine Radical]

32. Wiki's problem lies in the anonymity.

At least in the traditional scholarly world people have to sign their work, so anyone committing fraud or even excessive errors will tend to lose credibility as they get exposed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. I'm not worried about who is speaking

I'm not sure why it matters who said Siegenthaler was involved in the kennedy assassination, for instance. From a legal standpoint or an ethical standpoint, perhaps, but there are plenty of ways to evaluate claims that don't involve assessment of the speaker's credibility. Hell, the whole movement in the sciences since the 17th century seems intent on removing "who is speaking" as a serious criterion. It doesn't concern me in the least bit that it is anonymous. In fact, I think the anonymity will even help us start evaluating claims themselves, rather than accepting or denying them on the basis of a speaker. I don't think this is a bad thing.

[Uncle Joe]

44. I agree with you KoKo01,

and it was only three years later in 1999 when the slander against Al Gore (he claimed to have invented the internet) became a corpwhorate owned MSM staple.

[Book Lover]

29. No, *access* to knowledge should be egalitarian

Creating and editing knowledge is best left to those who know what they're talking about. And open editing, as evidenced above, is simply an invitation to vandals.

[Exiled in America]

42. Problems are quickly corrected

And wikipedia remains a enjoyable collection of quality information in a collaborative environment. I never use wikipedia as a single source, but I do use it supplementary with additional sources.

You know how many times in my real experience wikipedia has been inaccurate and in conflict with my other sources? None. Wikipedia works. The problem with it is that some people have a hard time with change. The idea of a project where everyone can participate is just too much for some elitists to handle. The people are stupid animals who, wherever possible, should be herded away from any kind of actual involvement in anything significant according to these people.

But I reject that notion wholesale. Collaborative, open efforts certainly don't have the same level of stale clinicalness of a proprietary work. Errors can occur. Writing quality can vary. But none of these things are insurmountable obstacles if you know what you are doing, and wikipedia does. Mistakes are quickly corrected and the quality of the overall project is high.

IF you want to disagree with this, then you ought to be able to post an array of examples of things you find on wikipedia right now today that are glaringly inaccurate. It shouldn't just be enough to "say" it is.

[pagandem4justice]

61. Agreed.

And while I do understand the point made by the other poster regarding the dangers of elitism in access to knowledge, I disagree that the only way to remedy this is to go completely to the opposite extreme, and allow everyone an equal role in editing a piece of what should be academic or scholarly work.

The idea of Wiki is just, and noble. The prctice of it is untenable in the real world, where (1) people use the access to post personal attacks and political misinformation, and (2) people who access the database mistake this ongoing experiment in collective scholarship for constant truth because it says "encyclopedia" and because it is in print.

What about the dmoz model (qualified editor-volunteers, myself included)? Granted, there are flaws, but it does keep the concept of user contribution and open access alive, while keeping restrictions on just who may write and edit the content.

:think: :shrug: :hi:

[occuserpens]

18. Well, it make sense to learn using wiki

[Cocoa]

20. it's only as good as its sources

if the links are broken, or if they don't match the wiki entry, then the entry is useless.

[Rich Hunt]

48. who uses it as a reference tool?

And do you think anyone who uses it in the way YOU think is a 'reference tool' automatically 'incompetent'?

Who makes character attacks and moral judgments? THE RIGHT WING.

Who likes to assume that people can't read it and make up their own minds? THE RIGHT WING

[Book Lover]

58. Are you calling me a freeper? (nm)

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Why did he quit his job?

[Teaser]

5. Why didn't Siegenthaler just change the info

instead of just bitching about it?

Oh...because he didn't (and still doesn't) understand the wiki movement.

[ticapnews]

6. The Internets are evil

They lead people to do all sorts of horrible things and should be closely regulated by the government or religious groups to ensure people do not abuse it or get led astray.

:sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

8. Then the prankser just reverts the edit back to the slander once again

The wiki movement is about neverending edit wars? That's a pretty lame movement, then.

[Moochy]

46. The working entries

far outweigh the broken /slandered or malicious entries.

[The Truffle]

11. He's an old guy...

...and he probably hasn't gotten the hang of the internet.

[Book Lover]

30. And what about those who read the text before the correction

and think the incorrect facts were true? Is it then incumbent upon him to chase after the world, telling everybody that there were lies posted about him in a purported encyclopedia?

[Rich Hunt]

49. oh come on!

That was a nasty bit of character assassination. If Wikipedia and its supporters want to retain their credibility, they would account for this potential in their planning and be open about this potential. So far, it looks as if they have.

Besides, this guy is an interesting fellow, and I'm sure that as Democrats anyone would be interested in a journalist being accused of assassination. It's in the public interest when public figures are accused of such horrendous things.

I for one am glad I know about it.

[tx_dem41]

7. Ummmm....how is this a shock.

By its very methodology, you can't necessarily believe anything on Wikipedia.

[TheWraith]

16. That's completely inaccurate.

Wikipedia is considerably more reliable than most other online references, and even more so than many conventional reference works.Sure, there's the possibility of inaccuracy, but most problems get found and corrected very quickly. There's a full record of all changes kept, and the staff editors can just undo anything that's changed. For that matter, as I recall users can revert a page too, or at least request a reversion.

The reality is that Wikipedia is remarkably accurate in all but a few details. It's vogue to trash it because big media would prefer that we get our information from them, rather than online. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Look at the number of inaccuracies in an average news broadcast, then tell me that Wikipedia is unreliable.

[Book Lover]

33. I would love to see some proof of your assertions (nm)

[Tesha]

38. On technical topics and non-"political" issues, Wiki is very good.

> I would love to see some proof of your assertions (nm)

The poster is correct: On technical topics and non-"political" issues,
Wiki is very good, often very timely, and frequently the most-complete
easy-to-find reference that most of us can access.

But on political topics, Wiki can be very dangerous. Articles such as
"Howard Dean", "Abortion", "Evolution", or "Democratic Underground"
are constantly being edited to contain one blatant "point of view"
or another. Over time, some of the articles resolve into a text that,
if not exactly pleasingto everyone, at least seems to reflect the
general consensus of those Wikipedians who've taken the time to
edit the article but other articles never do "settle".

If you want a quick way to evaluate the likely accuracy of any given
Wiki artcile, check it's edit "History" and its "Talk" (discussion)
page; that will give you a good idea of how volatile the article has
been and whether or not you can trust the data contained therein.

Tesha

[Wordie]

60. A review of "History" and "Talk" can be good learning tool in itself

in those cases where the editing has been exceptionally "hot," I've even seen a disclaimer, saying:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Please see discussion on the talk page.

...which seems a good way to tip people off to the fact that there is a dispute about the article, and what it's all about.

Wiki seems a good resource. Of course if you are writing your PhD or Master's thesis, one would presume that you would not use it. For the rest of us, it's a great way to access information.

[Tesha]

37. Anyone can revert a page; admins can "mass revert"

Any Wikipedia user can revert any (unprotected) page to any previous version.
Administrators have the additional advantage that they can do a mass revert
when it's clear that a given editor is a vandal and nothing they've edited
amounts to anything good.

Most Wiki vandalism is blatant and in your face, e.g., "Bobby is *SO* gay!"
or "Howard Dean is the spawn of the devil!". The worst vandalism is the
more-subtle data-vandalism where someone simply, quietly changes a fact
to be wrong or inserts an eggregiously wrong "fact" (as in this case).
Even with all the Wiki users/editors out there, not every fact can be
checked every time.

Tesha

[Rich Hunt]

50. Wikipedia uses references

It uses mainstream sources. It is a starting point, a launching pad, and an idealistic
experiment in progress.

Get wise - this is about corporate media's attempt to cut it off before information
gets any more accessible to people. They would rather have you get all of your
information from THEM. Well, you're not going to learn about the guy who was
smeared as a Kennedy assassin from them - that's for sure!

[Ian David]

9. I'll admit to changing "Olympus Mons" to "Pubis Mons"

And I think I also changed Valles Marineris to Vaginis Marinara.

[daleo]

10. Wiki exposes what is true of any reference source

There is always the possibility of bias, and people have to take that into account at all times. The internet has just taken this power out of the hands of the few, and given it to the many.

They may need to go in some more explicit peer review direction, I suppose. I think for relatively non-controversial topics, the current model works fine. Obviously, subjects like the JFK assassination are going to attract propagandists of all stripes though.

[Hypatia82]

14. There is peer review in place...

that being everyone who looks at any given article. It's the ulimate in peer review.

[daleo]

15. Yes, that is a sort of peer review

I was thinking along more traditional lines, but as you say, the entire human race is the ultimate peer review.

I think people just have to get used to the idea that there are no ultimate authorities, and you have to triangulate on the "truth" through multiple points of view. Read Wiki, but don't assume that is the end of a subject.

A lot of people used to live in a fool's paradise, some still do, on the matter of authorities. Life is not that simple.

[depakid]

13. Credibility comparison between Wiki and the USA Today-

I think the record speaks for itself. Wiki wins hands down.

Not even a contest, there.

[occuserpens]

19. RIGHT

[Cocoa]

22. totally disagree

if I saw a claim that only appeared in wiki, and saw another that only appeared in USA Today, it would be no contest for me. I would be reasonably confident in the USA Today entry, and not at all confident in the wikipedia entry.

Wikipedia entries are only useful if they link to credible sources such as USA Today.

[occuserpens]

23. apchee

[lisby]

25. Credible and USA Today in the same sentence?

:spray:


Lisby

[Cocoa]

26. I think it's an excellent paper

a little pricey, but once in a while I splurge.

I take it you don't care for USA Today.

[depakid]

36. It's generic American "news"

Gannet will print pretty much anything- with little or no analysis.

As Krugman mentioned- if Bush said the earth was flat- Gannet would say "Shape of earth questioned- opinions vary."

I'll stick with Wiki, myself. So far, it's been A LOT more accurate. Take the bombings in Britian this summer- Wiki was all over that as it was happening- whereas the American press was misinforming people for days and days.

[Uncle Joe]

45. I agree depakid,

Gannet owns the Tennessean Newspaper, the Tennessean does not speak for Tennesseans anymore. A small case in point is the latest article regarding Bill Clinton coming out and saying Bush was just flat wrong about global warming. Every edition of that story that I have read has a paragraph in it stating something to the effect of the chief negotiator for the Kyoto Treaty was Clinton's Vice President Al Gore, in Sunday's edition of the Tennessean, that lone paragraph is omitted. You would think a state newspaper would not leave out a paragraph touting one it's favorite sons. This is par for the course for the Tennessean ever since Gannet has owned them.

[NashVegas]

52. Fascinating to Me, the Attitude Towards Gannet / USA Today / Tennessean

The journalist this story is about, John Siegenthaler, was the founding editor of USA Today. And he is considered a giant in journalism, and in free speech causes.

USA Today's current editor, Ken Paulson, was actually running the First Amendment Center (founded by Siegenthaler, IIRC) before taking his current job.

When I moved to Nash Vegas, many trashed of the Tennessean and talked about the Banner like it was a "real newspaper." The Banner was a fucking joke. Actually, they both were but the difference was the Banner was locally owned, and conservative. The Tennessean is supposedly a liberal paper, but it's a spineless one. It's been getting a little better under the current editor. I don't have high hopes, but at least it's not on the same level as toilet paper anymore.

Just adding a little local context.

[Uncle Joe]

54. The Tennessean did a piss poor job

of getting the truth out regarding the slanders against Al Gore prior to the coup of 2000.

I have nothing against John Siegenthaler, I am a regular viewer of his program on P.B.S. "A Word on Words".

P.S. As a native of Nashville, I am curious as to where you came up with the term Nash Vegas, I have not heard of this before and wonder as to it's meaning?

[NashVegas]

55. Nash Vegas

I don't know when and how it came about, but that's a term I picked up when I first moved down here. I assumed it had something to do with those who come here hoping to get lucky in the music biz.

[Uncle Joe]

56. Welcome to Nashville Music City Crisco,

Where they will not give you a birth certificate unless you come out picking a guitar.:)

[NashVegas]

57. LOL! Thanks

Lord help the drummers.

[Tesha]

39. You know, I read that George W. Bush won the 2000 election.

I read this claim in any number of mainstream media outlets.

Think it's true?

Tesha

[Gregorian]

21. Who discovered America? Who invented television?

Who was the first to fly heavier than air craft?

Columbus? Philo Farnsworth? The Wright brothers? Or maybe not?

I hope Wiki keeps up what is a fantastic reference service to the world.

[occuserpens]

24. Even on highly controversial issues

wiki gives a good idea of what is going on: http://www.answers.com/topic/muqtada-al-sadr

[sendero]

31. I think Wiki is very useful..

... but I don't use it for life and death subjects. When I read something there that sounds fishy, I can easily google myself an answer.

Overall, it's not perfect but it is a very useful resource - folks who expect it to be Encyclopedia Britannica are morons.

[Tesha]

40. Google is starting to need a -noWiki qualifier, though.

> I can easily google myself an answer.

Google is starting to need a -noWiki qualifier, though, which would exclude from
your search Wiki itself and all the sites that mirror its data. Often, Wiki and
its clones are the first things that turn up on google searches, so if you want
to hear from a source *OTHER THAN* Wikipedia, it can be tough!

Tesha

[MadisonProgressive]

34. I'm glad he confessed.

[NashVegas]

53. Confessed, Apologized w/a Hand Delivered-Letter, and Resigned From His Job

Chase wrote: "I am truly sorry to have offended you, sir. Whatever fame comes to me from this will be ill-gotten indeed."

Seigenthaler said he "was not after a pound of flesh" and would not take Chase to court.

Chase resigned because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. Seigenthaler urged Chase's boss to rehire him, but Chase said this had not happened.

Ya know, when people speak about Southern gentlemen & honor, this is the kind of thing they're talking about. Total throwback. Anyone see Bill Frist making any apologies to Michael Schiavo?

[Bridget Burke]

41. I take any information source with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia is better on non-political topics. And the best articles include references.

[DelawareValleyDem]

51. Wikipedia is excellent as a starting point for research

but I recommend consulting other sources in conjunction with it even if you are only skimming at topic.

[occuserpens]

59. sure