Posted on 12/10/2005 7:42:59 PM PST by nickcarraway
It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with the joker losing his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering a blow to its credibility.
A man in Nashville 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 in Nashville.
Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Mr. Seigenthaler on Friday that he had written the material suggesting that Mr. Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. Wikipedia, a nonprofit venture that is the world's biggest encyclopedia, is written and edited by thousands of volunteers.
Mr. 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. His plight touched off a debate about the reliability of information on Wikipedia - and by extension the entire Internet - and the difficulty in holding Web sites and their users accountable, even when someone is defamed.
In a confessional letter to Mr. Seigenthaler, Mr. Chase said he thought Wikipedia was a "gag" Web site and that he had written the assassination tale to shock a co-worker, who knew of the Seigenthaler family and its illustrious history in Nashville.
"It had the intended effect," Mr. Chase said of his prank in an interview. But Mr. Chase said that once he became aware last week through news accounts of the damage he had done to Mr. Seigenthaler, he was remorseful and also a little scared of what might happen to him.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Was this an adult?
The NYTimes wishes.
I take everything I see on Wiki with a grain of SALT. The problem with these "thousands of volunteers" is there is no accountability. BLOGGERS can be traced--they generally take responsibility for what they post. But at Wiki sites, who the hell knows?? Nobody.
I hardly ever reference Wiki unless I've verified it somewhere else I consider reliable.
The question is, how many jokers have not yet been uncovered?
The NY Slimes is another unreliable "only part of the story" source. And 99% of the time, the Slimes tells the leftist version.
I have always thought of a prank as something like short-sheeting a bed. Slandering (or is that libelling) someone seems nastier.
I think Wikipedia is a silly idea prone to BS and lacking any credibility at all... even BEFORE this incident!
Short-sheeting? You monster!
I use a salt lick when it comes to Wikipedia..
who killed the Kennedys? "...after all it was you and me!"
There is an acclaimed translator out there, who translated everything from German language poetry Tao Te Ching, to The Book of Job and Bhagavad Gita, which should be enough of a red flag. I mean what translator can translate from multiple languages? Anyway, after reading some enthusiastic reviews I bought one of those translations, I think it was Tao Te Ching, only to discover that this bastard updated the original text with modern references and his own leftist points of view. Accountable?
I agree, wiki is unreliable, but it is what it is. Most of what you read there is genuinely accurate...but you simply can't accept it as true. It's as true as the last author who wrote it.
That said, it is useful for what it is. As long as you know that it's subject to be inaccurate, it can be good for learning about stuff. shrug.
You make a good point, Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia, it is entertainment .
It is not a reliable source of info, and certainly not a
professional source .
Its' standards of accuracy, balance and relevence are
very low to nonexistent .
It is popular tripe at best, full of innuendo created by those who are not compelled to list their sources or origins . .
Only a fool or a Liberal would trust Wikipedia !
Try looking up Free Republic on Wikipedia.
Liberal news outlets, a.k.a. "Main Stream Media" lie routinely everyday and yet that is accepted as no big deal.
His plight touched off a debate about the reliability of information on Wikipedia - and by extension the entire Internet
Debate? What debate? Everybody knows that the information on the Internet has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Wikipedia or blog or CNN.com - if you can't verify it from another source, it isn't true. The Internet is a wonderful exchange of information, but most of what's out here is opinion disguised as fact.
If anything, we should be grateful to the Internet for teaching us skepticism. We should then apply it to all other sources of information, not just the Net.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.