Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
 
More Blogs | Back to TR Editors' blog smaller text tool icon medium text tool icon larger text tool icon

About Us

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Add RSS Feed XML

Blog Topics

Recent Post

Wikipedia: Teapot Tempest

In the flap over a misleading biography on Wikipedia, many seem to have forgotten what the site is all about.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
By Wade Roush

Retired journalist John Siegenthaler, 78, ripped into the user-generated reference site Wikipedia in a USA Today commentary on November 29. Siegenthaler was understandably angry over a biographical entry at Wikipedia, posted in May by an anonymous contributor, that implied he was involved in the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

In fact, Siegenthaler was Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s, and was among his pallbearers. The misleading article stood uncorrected on Wikipedia from May 26 to October 5, when editors removed it at Siegenthaler's request.

In the USA Today piece, Siegenthaler expressed frustration that federal law prevented him from suing Wikipedia for libel. He attacked Wikipedia's 14,000 contributors as gossip hounds and "volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects."

Naturally, the piece provoked a flurry of coverage in the mainstream media, much of it lambasting Wikipedia for its supposed lack of quality controls. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged that there's little to prevent malicious individuals from publishing false information on the site, but emphasized that the Wikipedia community is generally self-policing, with squads of Wikipedians standing ready at all times to vet changes.

But that didn't quiet the criticism. On December 5, Wales buckled under, saying he would require all Wikipedia contributors to register and log in before posting. The extra step, he said, should help to discourage "impulse" vandals.

The fake biography of Siegenthaler obviously eluded Wikipedia's community controls. So do many other articles, at least for a time. But to me, that's no reason to condemn the concept of a citizens' encyclopedia, or to start down the slippery slope of restricting access to Wikipedia's publishing function.

What's puzzling about the whole brouhaha is this: Rather than railing at Wikipedia in general, why didn't Siegenthaler simply revise the objectionable entry and leave it at that? Indeed, the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can publish and anyone can edit. If you find an error, fix it. If you think you can write a better article, pull out your pen.

Of course, the flip side of the enormous flexibility provided by the Wiki format is that "anyone" includes people who are driven by motivations other than community spirit. But vandalism, malice, racism, spam, and the like can be kept to a minimum, as long as there are more good guys than bad guys. This is obviously happening at Wikipedia, or no one would be using it.

In subsequent USA Today coverage of the controversy, Paul Saffo of the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, CA, said he thought Siegenthaler was "overreacting" to the false biography. "He should have just changed it," Saffo told the paper. "And he should've gotten his friends to help him watch it and every time it was changed, to change it back to what was correct. He clearly doesn't understand the culture of Wikipedia."

I'm starting to think that few of us really do. We're accustomed to thinking of public pronouncements, whether in print or on radio or television, as permanent and irretrievable. Once something libelous, dematory, or scurrilous has been said or written, it cannot be unsaid or unwritten, and the only remedy is to sue for damages. But with Wiki-based media, this isn't the case. With a few  mouse clicks, the victim of a false or offensive statement on Wikipedia can erase that statement, instantly and everywhere. (At least until it reappears. "Revert wars," duels in which writers continually rewrite each others' articles, are an unseemly but inevitable and probably healthy occurrence at Wikipedia.)

The community-editing model gives us a newfound power to create wrongs -- but also to reverse wrongs. Let's not start restricting this power before we even understand it.

*   *   *

On another front: We've closely followed the NTP-RIM lawsuit of late, and weighed the impact that a shutdown of the BlackBerry network would have on users. Chris Sinrod has a nice commentary today over at CNET's News.com, confessing that he's a CrackBerry addict that predicting that if the suit isn't settled soon, RIM may see an "exodus" of customers to other wireless gadget-makers such as Palm.

Comments

  • Revert Wars
    Guest (Jokerman) on 12/07/2005 at 10:08 PM
    Posts:
    1
    While it is easy to say that Siegenthaler should have just corrected the errors. That probably would have ended up in a Revert War which can be abnormally time intensive.

    His action at least made a change to one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia and I think that has made Wikipedia stronger for it. Defaming people by lies is not progressive in our society and is in fact unethical.

    I think Wales has taken a constructive step and I think we are the better for it.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Revert Wars
    Guest (Jokerman) on 12/07/2005 at 10:08 PM
    Posts:
    1
    While it is easy to say that Siegenthaler should have just corrected the errors. That probably would have ended up in a Revert War which can be abnormally time intensive.

    His action at least made a change to one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia and I think that has made Wikipedia stronger for it. Defaming people by lies is not progressive in our society and is in fact unethical.

    I think Wales has taken a constructive step and I think we are the better for it.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Burden of proof
      Guest (Fred) on 12/09/2005 at 10:21 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Excuse me, but I believe all of us should be free from a burden to scour the Internet looking for libelous information about ourselves and be responsible for purging it. Free speech has limits - the old adage of shouting fire in a theatre is the standard bearer. There are too many people that believe anything they read on the internet when in fact there will always be a percentage - some would claim high - of unvetted information. Basically a lot of it is just opinion, without factual basis.
      If you could convice me that most Internet users are critical readers maybe this wouldnt be such an issue. Until then, I dont think asking someone to take responsibility for their public comments is such a bad thing.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Burden of proof
      Guest (Fred) on 12/09/2005 at 10:21 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Excuse me, but I believe all of us should be free from a burden to scour the Internet looking for libelous information about ourselves and be responsible for purging it. Free speech has limits - the old adage of shouting fire in a theatre is the standard bearer. There are too many people that believe anything they read on the internet when in fact there will always be a percentage - some would claim high - of unvetted information. Basically a lot of it is just opinion, without factual basis.
      If you could convice me that most Internet users are critical readers maybe this wouldnt be such an issue. Until then, I dont think asking someone to take responsibility for their public comments is such a bad thing.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Your Truth Vs My Truth
      Guest (Colin ) on 12/10/2005 at 4:25 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Some people believe accuracy should become a standard (in the future). Editors are often thought to uphold accuracy-in-reporting.

      Apparently, even Wikipedia is subject to an error. If Wikipedia is equal to (or better) than Dan Rather, we can all sleep at night. The world is safe yet.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Your Truth Vs My Truth
      Guest (Colin ) on 12/10/2005 at 4:25 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Some people believe accuracy should become a standard (in the future). Editors are often thought to uphold accuracy-in-reporting.

      Apparently, even Wikipedia is subject to an error. If Wikipedia is equal to (or better) than Dan Rather, we can all sleep at night. The world is safe yet.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wiki Admins
      Guest (Joe) on 12/10/2005 at 1:28 PM
      Posts:
      1
      My lengthy experience as a Wiki contributor reflects the continuous problems with Admins.  Many of them are Wiki-Wierdos who are anti-social, homosexual degenerates.  They are losers that have failed in REAL life and hang out at the Wiki.

      Death to the Wiki Admins !!
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wiki Admins
      Guest (Joe) on 12/10/2005 at 1:28 PM
      Posts:
      1
      My lengthy experience as a Wiki contributor reflects the continuous problems with Admins.  Many of them are Wiki-Wierdos who are anti-social, homosexual degenerates.  They are losers that have failed in REAL life and hang out at the Wiki.

      Death to the Wiki Admins !!
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wikipedia
      Guest (Jean Mongu Bele) on 12/12/2005 at 1:13 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Difamation is a bad virus in the free speech
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wikipedia
      Guest (Jean Mongu Bele) on 12/12/2005 at 1:13 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Difamation is a bad virus in the free speech
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Revert wars is a hoax
      Guest (Wikipedia Fan) on 12/18/2005 at 10:28 PM
      Posts:
      1
      We have no evidence that would suggest that should Siegenthaler have corrected his bio there would have been a revert war. That possibility is sheer speculation.

      Wikipedia volunteers get involved quickly when a revert war happens - and Siegenthaler would have quickly prevailed. But he didnt even try that. Instead he undertook a far more strenous and unnecessary path.

      Clearly Siegenthaler is not primarily concerned with his reputation here, he has another agenda.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Revert wars is a hoax
      Guest (Wikipedia Fan) on 12/18/2005 at 10:28 PM
      Posts:
      1
      We have no evidence that would suggest that should Siegenthaler have corrected his bio there would have been a revert war. That possibility is sheer speculation.

      Wikipedia volunteers get involved quickly when a revert war happens - and Siegenthaler would have quickly prevailed. But he didnt even try that. Instead he undertook a far more strenous and unnecessary path.

      Clearly Siegenthaler is not primarily concerned with his reputation here, he has another agenda.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Revert Wars
    Guest (Jokerman) on 12/07/2005 at 10:08 PM
    Posts:
    1
    While it is easy to say that Siegenthaler should have just corrected the errors. That probably would have ended up in a Revert War which can be abnormally time intensive.

    His action at least made a change to one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia and I think that has made Wikipedia stronger for it. Defaming people by lies is not progressive in our society and is in fact unethical.

    I think Wales has taken a constructive step and I think we are the better for it.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Wikipedia error correction
    Guest (Arwel) on 12/08/2005 at 6:43 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The good thing about Wikipedia is how quickly errors CAN be corrected. If this site was a wiki, for example, Id be able to correct &quothe would require all Wikipedia contributors to register and log in before posting.&quot to &quothe would be require all Wikipedia contributors to register and log in before creating new articles, although anonymous editors are still allowed to edit existing articles.&quot !
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wiki and Internet
      Guest (Colin) on 12/08/2005 at 3:36 PM
      Posts:
      1
      The concept of Wiki is very powerful. This is the free exchange of ideas at its greatest and will attract detractors and advocates. The marriage of the Internet distribution and wikis sharing is an open forum for all. Rather than bemoan drawbacks, we should promote the best of it.

      If you want to guage Wikis power, see how quikly it becomes the dominant authority.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wiki and Internet
      Guest (Colin) on 12/08/2005 at 3:36 PM
      Posts:
      1
      The concept of Wiki is very powerful. This is the free exchange of ideas at its greatest and will attract detractors and advocates. The marriage of the Internet distribution and wikis sharing is an open forum for all. Rather than bemoan drawbacks, we should promote the best of it.

      If you want to guage Wikis power, see how quikly it becomes the dominant authority.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • On par with Britannica
      Guest (M. Messana) on 12/16/2005 at 10:19 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Recent article published in Nature found that Britannica averages 3 inaccuracies per article and that Wikipedia averages four.  First scientific analysis of the comparative quality.  See:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • On par with Britannica
      Guest (M. Messana) on 12/16/2005 at 10:19 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Recent article published in Nature found that Britannica averages 3 inaccuracies per article and that Wikipedia averages four.  First scientific analysis of the comparative quality.  See:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Wikipedia error correction
    Guest (Arwel) on 12/08/2005 at 6:43 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The good thing about Wikipedia is how quickly errors CAN be corrected. If this site was a wiki, for example, Id be able to correct &quothe would require all Wikipedia contributors to register and log in before posting.&quot to &quothe would be require all Wikipedia contributors to register and log in before creating new articles, although anonymous editors are still allowed to edit existing articles.&quot !
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Bravo!
    Guest (grovermonster) on 12/09/2005 at 8:12 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Your article was excellent. The Wikipedia &quotscandal&quot has given the Luddites I know something to crow about, but the pont is that they just dont get it. Thanks for writing this.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Is it reasonable to expect him to edit?
      Guest (Miikka) on 12/09/2005 at 9:43 PM
      Posts:
      1
      While Im a long-time Wikipedia editor myself, I find what Siegenthaler did or didnt do to remove the slander is irrelevant.

      His point never was about removing content from the Wikipedia, but about the way the false accusations had comfortably sat there for over four months.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Is it reasonable to expect him to edit?
      Guest (Miikka) on 12/09/2005 at 9:43 PM
      Posts:
      1
      While Im a long-time Wikipedia editor myself, I find what Siegenthaler did or didnt do to remove the slander is irrelevant.

      His point never was about removing content from the Wikipedia, but about the way the false accusations had comfortably sat there for over four months.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Bravo!
    Guest (grovermonster) on 12/09/2005 at 8:12 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Your article was excellent. The Wikipedia &quotscandal&quot has given the Luddites I know something to crow about, but the pont is that they just dont get it. Thanks for writing this.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Re. John Siegenthaler flap
    Guest (S. R. Ponamgi) on 12/09/2005 at 10:22 AM
    Posts:
    1

    Yes, Mr. Siegenthaler overreacted but he has every right. The only problem is his overreaction should be directed at the unidentified (and may be unidentifiable) person who wrote the original fake biography.  It would have been nice if Mr. Siegenthaler realized that these things happen in our society (just like the man with bipolar disease was fatally shot at Miami Airport).

    I think Wikipedia is wonderful for the most part.

    But why not require everybody who wants to post, publish or edit.
    It may slow down things a little but what is the hurry?

    S. Rao Ponamgi
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • The pretence of fact ... guaranteed by the obsessed
      Guest (BOKE) on 12/09/2005 at 1:42 PM
      Posts:
      1
      [rhetorical verse / haiku] The press misframes things. / Columnists misunderstand. / The world keeps turning.

      {smile} BOKE / www.boke.com
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • [Excuse duplicate comments]
        Guest (BOKE) on 12/09/2005 at 2:15 PM
        Posts:
        1
        NOTE: I am having difficulties using
        this comment form (using either
        Foxfire or Explorer).
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • [Excuse duplicate comments]
        Guest (BOKE) on 12/09/2005 at 2:15 PM
        Posts:
        1
        NOTE: I am having difficulties using
        this comment form (using either
        Foxfire or Explorer).
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • The pretence of fact ... guaranteed by the obsessed
      Guest (BOKE) on 12/09/2005 at 1:42 PM
      Posts:
      1
      [rhetorical verse / haiku] The press misframes things. / Columnists misunderstand. / The world keeps turning.

      {smile} BOKE / www.boke.com
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • The pretence of fact ... guaranteed by the obsessed
      Guest (BOKE) on 12/09/2005 at 1:43 PM
      Posts:
      1
      [rhetorical verse / haiku] The press misframes things. / Columnists misunderstand. / The world keeps turning.

      {smile} BOKE / www.boke.com
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • The pretence of fact ... guaranteed by the obsessed
      Guest (BOKE) on 12/09/2005 at 1:43 PM
      Posts:
      1
      [rhetorical verse / haiku] The press misframes things. / Columnists misunderstand. / The world keeps turning.

      {smile} BOKE / www.boke.com
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Big Media vs. Wikipedia?
      Guest (Araque) on 12/12/2005 at 12:23 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Someone is interested in harping this story... Wikipedia is COMPETITION for eyeballs, for that matter some people are rushing to discredit it by blowing up this story way out of proportion.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Big Media vs. Wikipedia?
      Guest (Araque) on 12/12/2005 at 12:23 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Someone is interested in harping this story... Wikipedia is COMPETITION for eyeballs, for that matter some people are rushing to discredit it by blowing up this story way out of proportion.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Conflicting Requirements of Wikipedia
      Guest (CatoTheElderII) on 12/12/2005 at 4:41 PM
      Posts:
      1
      The root of the problem is with Jim Wales Vision which has conflicting requirements.  He wants both a &quotHigh quality Encyclopedia&quot and at the same time allow Anonymous contributions.  Those two things simply do not, and can not, go together.  Therefore Wikipedia has issues.  This is not to say that there are no High Quality articles in Wikipedia.  There are many.  However, they are interspersed with an unknown, and more importantly, unknowable number of biased or incorrect articles.  It is the small amount of poison in a well that makes the water undrinkable.  The problem is not the technology - it is that the concept is flawed at its root.

      There is a solution.  Its called Peer Review. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Conflicting Requirements of Wikipedia
      Guest (CatoTheElderII) on 12/12/2005 at 4:41 PM
      Posts:
      1
      The root of the problem is with Jim Wales Vision which has conflicting requirements.  He wants both a &quotHigh quality Encyclopedia&quot and at the same time allow Anonymous contributions.  Those two things simply do not, and can not, go together.  Therefore Wikipedia has issues.  This is not to say that there are no High Quality articles in Wikipedia.  There are many.  However, they are interspersed with an unknown, and more importantly, unknowable number of biased or incorrect articles.  It is the small amount of poison in a well that makes the water undrinkable.  The problem is not the technology - it is that the concept is flawed at its root.

      There is a solution.  Its called Peer Review. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wikipedia
      Guest (Baron Topor) on 12/12/2005 at 9:30 PM
      Posts:
      1
      The very concept of Wikipedia is bogus, and anyone who would use it as a reference is foolish. Why? Because it is unprofessional. No research, no fact-checking, no responsibility, consistency or accuracy. In other words, it is a useless waste of energy, because the encyclopedia-destroyers are too cheap to pay what it takes to publish a real reference source.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wikipedia
      Guest (Baron Topor) on 12/12/2005 at 9:30 PM
      Posts:
      1
      The very concept of Wikipedia is bogus, and anyone who would use it as a reference is foolish. Why? Because it is unprofessional. No research, no fact-checking, no responsibility, consistency or accuracy. In other words, it is a useless waste of energy, because the encyclopedia-destroyers are too cheap to pay what it takes to publish a real reference source.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • No fact checking on Wikipedia?
      Guest (Emmanuel M) on 12/14/2005 at 9:58 AM
      Posts:
      1
      To Baron Topor: I own an MD and a PhD. I regularily check 7 pages on Wikipedia for errors. We are thousands doing this.

      Baron, who checks the facts you listen to every day?
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • No fact checking on Wikipedia?
      Guest (Emmanuel M) on 12/14/2005 at 9:58 AM
      Posts:
      1
      To Baron Topor: I own an MD and a PhD. I regularily check 7 pages on Wikipedia for errors. We are thousands doing this.

      Baron, who checks the facts you listen to every day?
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wikipedia faulty
      Guest (Schuele) on 12/17/2005 at 11:37 AM
      Posts:
      1
      They (Wikipedia) need to check their sources before they allow anyone to add data.  I think that it is fine that people are allowed to submit info, but none of it should be allowed to be viewed by the general public until all facts are checked out.

      More control is needed if they are ever to be looked at as a source of reliable knowledge.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Wikipedia faulty
      Guest (Schuele) on 12/17/2005 at 11:37 AM
      Posts:
      1
      They (Wikipedia) need to check their sources before they allow anyone to add data.  I think that it is fine that people are allowed to submit info, but none of it should be allowed to be viewed by the general public until all facts are checked out.

      More control is needed if they are ever to be looked at as a source of reliable knowledge.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Re. John Siegenthaler flap
    Guest (S. R. Ponamgi) on 12/09/2005 at 10:22 AM
    Posts:
    1

    Yes, Mr. Siegenthaler overreacted but he has every right. The only problem is his overreaction should be directed at the unidentified (and may be unidentifiable) person who wrote the original fake biography.  It would have been nice if Mr. Siegenthaler realized that these things happen in our society (just like the man with bipolar disease was fatally shot at Miami Airport).

    I think Wikipedia is wonderful for the most part.

    But why not require everybody who wants to post, publish or edit.
    It may slow down things a little but what is the hurry?

    S. Rao Ponamgi
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Self-healing ability of Wikipedia
    Guest (M. Messana) on 12/16/2005 at 10:27 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Also dont forget the Isuzu Experiment, in which Alex Halavais introduced a round of inaccuracies to various entries Wikipedia as a test.  While some were blatant and some were subtle, all were caught and corrected within hours.

    http://alex.halavais.net/news/index.php?p=794
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Democracy or Mobocracy?
      Guest (Jim Jinkins) on 12/19/2005 at 11:41 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Claiming that Mr Siegenthaler or anyone else libeled in a Wikipedia entry should have no other recourse than reverting the entry and continuing to spend his time fighting a revert war is arrogance to say the least.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Democracy or Mobocracy?
      Guest (Jim Jinkins) on 12/19/2005 at 11:41 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Claiming that Mr Siegenthaler or anyone else libeled in a Wikipedia entry should have no other recourse than reverting the entry and continuing to spend his time fighting a revert war is arrogance to say the least.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Self-healing ability of Wikipedia
    Guest (M. Messana) on 12/16/2005 at 10:27 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Also dont forget the Isuzu Experiment, in which Alex Halavais introduced a round of inaccuracies to various entries Wikipedia as a test.  While some were blatant and some were subtle, all were caught and corrected within hours.

    http://alex.halavais.net/news/index.php?p=794
    Rate this comment: 123