Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar

The Sunday NYT ^ | Dec. 4, 2005 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[summer]

FALSE WITNESS How true are "facts" online?

ACCORDING to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. is 78 years old and the former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. But is that information, or anything else in Mr. Seigenthaler's biography, true?

[summer]

I know there has been a lot of disussion on FR about Wikipedia, with some people really liking it, and some hating it.

I have come to this conclusion: if you want to find out something about a basically irrelevant topic, it might be a good place to look. But, if you are looking for serious, valid, biographical information, especially about historical figures, it is not the place to go. There is a huge political bias at Wikiepedia, and a faction of people who are intent on rewriting the world's history "as they see it."

Consequently, it very makes me very nervous when Wikipedia's founder says in inerviews that he intends to publish hard copies of Wikiepedia as books and distribute them for free to school children around the world. Yikes!

[summer]

And, it does not surprise me at all that someone found out their biographical information online at Wikipedia was false, as here in this article.

[Izzy Dunne]

This from the New York Times?

Why would I believe THEM?

[summer]

I meant: Consequently, it makes me very nervous when Wikipedia's founder says in interviews that he intends to publish hard copies of Wikiepedia as books and distribute them for free to school children around the world. Yikes!

[summer]

True. Their credibility has been shot, too, and not just online. Thank you, Jayson Blair and others...

[NonValueAdded]

Do you mean the NYT is responding, "hey, that's our job! How dare they."?

[summer]

LOL...

[Quilla]

Great post, summer. Many believe Wikipedia is an accurate, unbiased source of information. They have launched a version exclusively for DU. From Wikipedia, on Democratic Underground:

Demopedia

On December 7, 2004, DU launched the beta version of Demopedia, a wiki based collaborative project aimed at presenting the Democratic and progressive opinion and outlook, and at collating and preserving some of the information generated on the forums. During the beta, only users who had registered at DU before December 7 were able to contribute. It uses the MediaWiki software.

[Brett66]

So it sounds like a lot of the bio info comes from a bunch of George Noory tinfoil hat types.

[xcamel]

The cardinal rules of news, as indelible as the first amendment, have eroded to:

Who I choose to pick on
What I choose to see
When I get around to it
Where I choose to be at the time
Why I care more than you do
How I choose to see it.

[Admin Moderator]

The photo posted in the article is from Getty Images.
It has been removed.

Please do not post photos from Getty or Corbis.

[summer]

Thanks for telling me and deleting it.

[summer]

Here's the rest of the text I posted, from the article:

...The question arises because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and was shocked to learn that he "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby."

"Nothing was ever proven," the biography added.

Mr. Seigenthaler discovered that the false information had been on the site for several months and that an unknown number of people had read it, and possibly posted it on or linked it to other sites.

If any assassination was going on, Mr. Seigenthaler (who is 78 and did edit The Tennessean) wrote last week in an op-ed article in USA Today, it was of his character.

The case triggered extensive debate on the Internet over the value and reliability of Wikipedia, and more broadly, over the nature of online information....

[Seamoth]

Anyone can launch wikipedia on their website. The Wikipedia staff has nothing to do with it. I find Wikipedia very valuable for giving explanation on topics which are not suspectible to political bias, such as mathematics.

I think it'd be neat if FR started their own wiki too, so anyone wanting to find out what a ZOT was could simply type it in.

[Quilla]

I didn't know that. Thanks.

[Aquinasfan]

I know there has been a lot of disussion on FR about Wikipedia, with some people really liking it, and some hating it.

That in itself is progress. Remember when the Encyclopedia Britannica came down from on high?

[Strategerist]

I've been pleasantly surprised by Wikipedia myself....primarily for Science, and (not recent) History. Articles much better than I would have expected and free from obvious errors.

I haven't really looked for anything that might be political.

[SamAdams76]

Wikipedia is basically good for up-to-the-minute information on current events and "irrelevant" topics as you put it.

My hardbound Encyclopedia Brittanica (1986 edition) is still the ultimate reference for historical subjects, but it is no good (obviously) for information on current topics.

Wikipedia is pretty cool for the obscure stuff. For example, you can look up pretty much any rock band and get a full discography and some biographical facts. Try looking up "Led Zeppelin" in any respectable encyclopedia! But on Wikipedia, you get oodles of information on this seminal rock band.

Another thing I like about Wikipedia is that it is updated virtually to the minute. For example, when there is a breaking news story, it is fun to go to the article in Wikipedia and see it already there. I must say that they have a pretty good track record staying current. When Apple released the iPod nano, I went right to the iPod Wikipedia article and saw the nano listed there in the article like it had been out for years. I thought that was pretty cool!

Obviously, I wouldn't have my kids write a school paper on the basis of a Wikipedia article. I would agree that they are not as solid a reference as a more established encyclopeida edited by professionals. But even the detractors must admit that the concept of Wikipedia is pretty awesome and it seems to police itself pretty well in general.

[tarzantheapeman]

Good point.

I actually heard Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) speak about his site. He expressed a concern that only a small number of people contibute the majority of information, He acknowledged that most of the contributers have a bias against the present administration, Republicans in general, and of the USA. He said that the best way to combat this bias was to get more people with other opinions and beliefs to contribute to the site. Concerned Freepers should pick articles that they have problems with and contribute new content to document a more objective picture. People get a chance to vote on modifications, especially on controversial topics, so the more Freepers involved the better.

[Popman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic