Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar

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?

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.

link

;)

He was also a Freedom Rider.
Here's his biography from their website:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/biography.aspx?name...

His page seems to be down for some reason. :think:

Hey, I'm not being serious, and I know you weren't either, but this Wikipedia thing deserves some real scrutiny. I don't trust it nearly as much as I once did after I read what Jimmy Wales, its founder, had to say about it recently. He has distanced himself because of what he sees as serious and likely unfixable flaws in the premise.

Meanwhile, no one deserves to be smeared - even if they (HORRORS) don't have political opinions identical to our own. Equal protection under the law is a constitutional guarantee, and I support it because I want it to apply to me, too.

Peace.

...on /.

Consider how you might feel if you came across a Wikipedia article that trashed you in the most outrageous way (you are really Karl Rove in disguise, etc.). What would you do? What could you do?

Maybe edit the article....:think:

n/t

Then I'd cry.

And then I'd do what another poster above me said: edit the freakin' article! And come back in a month and edit the freakin' thing again if need be!

(And if I had the money of some of these powerful public folks, I'd hire an English-speaking illegal alien to sit around all day and make sure my Wikipedia entry is 100% positive at all times so that elementary school students don't write any falsehoods about me in their homework assignments..!)

... would have this kind of problem?

Face it, Jason Blair is overqualified to edit at Wikipedia.

I laugh whenver someone tries to pass it off as a legitimate source for info.

cookies as a reference?

to the NY Times, eh?

it's the national center for organized graffiti

Do have any examples in addition to this alleged John Seigenthaler incident to show that ridiculous articles exist at Wikipedia?

(I posted in the DU Skeptics forum about the wiki article "Skepticism" being in dispute citing bias, so I'm not totally foreign to your base concern. I'm genuinely interested in examples you may have.)

I cannot imagine any truly educated person using Wikipedia as a source for anything serious. If you're writing a paper, find a real source. Wikipedia is no source. You might as well say "my cousin's friend Ray-Ray said so."

Wikipedia is to real sources what pickup basketball is to the NBA.

and like most sources, it is good to fact check. I think Wiki is a great place to get leads when researching. Outlandish entries are usually edited out quickly and deep disagreements are alerted as such.

DU is similar in nature, IMO.

as a legitimate source.

It's fine if you don't really need to prove anything, if you want what is probably 95% right, but it's strictly for people who can't find real sources.

I think both are viable research tools however.

It's not considered a legitimate source by those who actually know what good sources are.

Have you been banned from editing at Wiki?

I do agree they should not be used a a formal source but they are great for leads.IMO

It's a great place for people who don't know anything.

They have pretend editors, people who aren't qualified to be message board moderators. The product is a joke. Why are you so heavily invested in defending Wikipedia?

Are you one of the people who is trained to drive a truck or fix computers, but likes to be a pretend editor in your spare time? That's the problem, right there. It appeals to people who lack proper training in the fields for which they opine.

of information. Most of the info put on Wiki has sourcing for it.

Show me an example of incorrect info on Wikipedia(that lasts more than a few days)that you feel supports your assertation.

The editing community at Wiki polices itself and gets rid of editors that fool around.(as you know)

I am not saying it is perfect but I do believe it is innovative.

Unqualified ones, at that.

What do you feel makes an editor qualified or not an amateur?

But it seems that ways to those who are inaccurate.

That Scientology and their secret wealthy patrons currently have a beef with Wikipedia.

Stuff does slip into Wikipedia that is inaccurate, however it eventually gets checked and referenced.

Referencing Wikipedia is no different than referencing Dictionary.com or World Book - if anything, you'll find less corporate spin and 'handling' of information there.

Who the hell uses it 'in higher academia'? It's used as a reference in online discussion. I DO hope that some private 'marketing' types aren't sneering because people reference it online. Also, I would hope that anyone with grad school aspirations knows the difference between Wikipedia's value to discussion groups and value to, say, academic papers.

More curious non-sequiturs....

I think it's great for that. I would never, ever, ever reference a wikipedia article in anything serious though.

That said, I have become concerned because someone only using for casual info could go away with the wrong impression about something or someone. Because they were only reading casually, they might not track down the information to see if it is correct. Still that false info lodges in their subconsious and could bias their future perceptions about the person or thing.

Wikipedia should limit editing to identified users, I'm afraid. Although I haven't made up my mind on that 100% yet.

the other guy just wants to slam anyone without a PHD in messageboard opinion posting.lol

I wouldn't use Wiki for proving but I definitely find it useful for research and leads.

I am simply troubled by the number of people who use it as a source. The entries are not professionally vetted, and it shows in the quality, or lack thereof, of the writing.

I agree it is not approp for citations but I don't think I have ever seen it used as such.

Whatever those are.

It's a starting point. A STARTING POINT.

I mean, there are references at the bottom and links you can click to - not that difficult, eh?

I have an academic background. I also have a gaggle of corporate stalkers who try to get others to smear me on boards I frequent. I wouldn't doubt that this is their latest bitch about me.

I'm not writing a paper on, say, controversies around religious cults. I am merely trying to learn about them as a citizen. Different context. Wikipedia is a FINE starting point for that.

I don't use it for academic research and never have. I HAVE however, checked Wikipedia to see if their information is fair and accurate, because it's important that popular references demonstrate some fairness. I guess I'll never make it in academia now that I've tasted the forbidden fruit! :sarcasm:

Wikipedia, bad, bad, bad! Once you've gone there or cited it online, you're 'tainted' for life, apparently.

I can't imagine anyone with a high school education not avoiding the fallacy of appeal to authority, "where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility".
;)

The thing is to make sure it's not a discipline inhabited by ... um ... is "kooks" too strong a word?

"Snared In The Web of a Liberal Blogging Liar".

What's the article about? Someone said something nasty about G.W. Bush on a liberal blog, and a senior Bush Administration official is PEEVED!

As far as this current Wikipedia-related article goes, is it NOT true that "he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby?" It's kind of like Fox News' "some people say", but is it dishonest -- a "lie" -- to say that some people said it? The entry even notes that "nothing was ever proven."

So what was the point of this article? Why does Seigenthaler even care, if not to inspire even more discussion on his possible involvement?

Like Finder said, absurd edits are usually reverted within an hour. It's fine for fact-checking and getting a start on research. The wiki community takes their role seriously and goes through painstaking research to ensure that articles are accurate and NPOV.

I wouldn't cite it for a graduate level course, but I'm not in grad school yet, either. ;)

any more ...

You might as well be reading The Reader's Digest or People magazine for your information, as to get it from Wikipedia. It's a public trough that everyone uses to slop their hogs.

It's slightly better than nothing.

The fact is, Wikipedia is popular BECAUSE every numb nuts can add to it.

It is no different than using blogs, news articles and such for research. Fact checking is still done on any leads so it doesn't matter in the end. If the info is incorrect or without merit, a researcher will find out soon enough.

It can be used in that manner.

Wiki is an excellent first stop when you're researching or just looking into something. I use it all the time.

Open source gives it a huge advantage over something like Google. People who are interested in a topic often share useful insights and outlink to useful and very credible pages (that are sometimes difficult to find through commerical search engines- even when you're pretty good with boolean search strings).

Open source also means that it remains fairly neutral on controversial topics- look up "aspartame," for example- and you'll see a very straightforward and accurate take on all sides of the debate- with links to very relevant data.

Try a google search for aspartame and see what you get.

Obviously, it's not meant to be definitive- and for obscure entries, you're unlikely to benefit from "the wisdom of crowds," and you might find someone with an axe to grind or "something to sell," but for the most part, Wiki's a fine resource.

ps: bachelor's degrees don't mean so much anymore because they've been "dumbed down" over the years. It's amazing how many students graduate without even a basic working knowledge of analytic methods- pretty basic stuff, you'd think.

Bachelor's degrees don't mean much because they're learning high school material just to get a bachelor's degree.

The writing skills of today's college grads are appalling. Part of the reason is the lack of good research skills, and part is the almost complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a good source.

at least for a couple of us. Sourcing info for an article is different than citing a source.

I do agree with the problem with grads and research skills.

Unless you're actually writing about wiki.

However, it is a great source for initial information- and I've found the takes in there to be concise and accurate most of the time.

I should have been more general with respect to analytic skills- it's not just precision and judgments about internal and external validity I find lacking among beginning grad students- but also rhetorical skills (as in the canons of Rhetoric, etc.)

Used to be, they taught that in high school (like civics). These days, I wonder how many schools even have forensic teams anymore.

Knock the smirking off. I DO hope that anyone familiar with academia could also distinguish between the nature of online debate and the nature of academic publishing.

Wikipedia is fairly literate, there are plenty of interesting links and references. If you're looking for INFORMATION online, it is a good place to start. What the HELL does that have to do with academia?

and there were some serious RW efforts going on to re-write some wiki sections to comport with RW views on things. Perhaps the article is just another attempt to discredit wikipedia for the same reasons?

I think for online purposes wiki is a great source. There's info there that you couldn't find easily with google searches.

Wow! Ron Reagan is talking about this RIGHT NOW! On MSNBC! Talk about coincidence!