|
Friday, December 16, 2005 The Wikipedia WarContinued from page 1 By Eric Hellweg
Evidently, the motive for encyclo-vandalism is sometimes just humor. According to a report in the New York Times, the contributor who entered false information about Seigenthaler (claiming he'd played a role in Robert Kennedy's assassination) was playing a joke on some friends. Since then, the perpetrator, Brian Chase, who was ferreted out, has apologized to Seigenthaler, who accepted his apology. I tested the Wikipedia correction process while reporting for this article. After logging on, without giving an e-mail address, I edited the entry dedicated to musician Tom Waits. In a section on the artist in the 1990s, I wrote that Waits had played a concert with Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, and Mr. Ed (the talking horse). Within 24 hours, the Presley and Mr. Ed references were removed, but the Elvis Costello citation -- also false, but not as glaringly so -- remained. There are real, perhaps inevitable weaknesses in Wikipedia's system. But the Siegenthal ordeal seems to have unleashed a disproportionate number of Wikipedia critics. News site Official Wire, run by Baou.com, is now posting stories that allege “Nazi-style behavior” among Wikipedia contributors and editors. And this week, a site called WikipediaClassAction.org went live, soliciting feedback and, more significantly, instances of monetary damages caused by Wikipedia. Their goal is to launch a class-action lawsuit against the site. When I called the phone number listed on that site, the person who answered refused to give his name, then rattled off a long series of allegations against Wikipedia. The charges felt specious to me, and were quite vitriolic. A quick piece of sleuthing turned up a likely explanation: Baou.com also runs an organization called QuakeAid, the Wikipedia entry for which cites some questionable circumstances surrounding the organization and its founders. Furthermore, some of the anti-Wikipedia articles found on Official Wire are written by “Jennifer Monroe,” the same name listed as having registered the domain WikipediaClassAction.org. Although Baou's actions imply a multi-pronged revenge campaign, some anti-Wikipedians appear to have more reasonable complaints. Daniel Brandt, the man behind wikipedia-watch.org (and also Google-watch.org), says that until Wikipedia drops its policy of allowing anonymous posts and edits, the quality of the site will suffer. “For research purposes you ought to be able to find [authors],” he says. But Brandt, too, has a personal reason to be upset with Wikipedia. He admits his opposition to the site came after he learned that it included a page about him with links he considered unflattering. Brandt was a prominent draft resister in the 1960s.
|
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
'Web 2.0' Has Arrived
10/07/2005
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Guest (Aaron E. Klemm) on 12/16/2005 at 2:11 AM
1
Second, your conclusion is a bit overblown. Maybe Wikipedia *doesnt* have to adopt new tactics. I would argue the process is working despite recent and occasional problems.
The information and usefulness of Wikipedia content is improving daily--so whats wrong?
Guest (Ivor Smith) on 12/16/2005 at 5:48 PM
1
Guest (funny article) on 12/18/2005 at 12:51 AM
1
he wrote
I edited the entry dedicated to musician Tom Waits. In a section on the artist in the 1990s, I wrote that Waits had played a concert with Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, and Mr. Ed (the talking horse). Within 24 hours, the Presley and Mr. Ed references were removed, but the Elvis Costello citation -- also false, but not as glaringly so -- remained
however
Faithful [H] reader Peter Hamilton (who I’m assuming is a Roy Orbison fan) pointed out that the information of Costello and Waits playing together is indeed true. A quick google search netted me the tell tale result. A simple click under Actors on the more link revealed that both aforementioned artists did indeed play this concert together
Guest (funny article) on 12/18/2005 at 12:51 AM
1
he wrote
I edited the entry dedicated to musician Tom Waits. In a section on the artist in the 1990s, I wrote that Waits had played a concert with Elvis Costello, Elvis Presley, and Mr. Ed (the talking horse). Within 24 hours, the Presley and Mr. Ed references were removed, but the Elvis Costello citation -- also false, but not as glaringly so -- remained
however
Faithful [H] reader Peter Hamilton (who I’m assuming is a Roy Orbison fan) pointed out that the information of Costello and Waits playing together is indeed true. A quick google search netted me the tell tale result. A simple click under Actors on the more link revealed that both aforementioned artists did indeed play this concert together
Guest (James) on 12/18/2005 at 4:30 AM
1
Guest (TR editor) on 12/19/2005 at 4:33 PM
1
Guest (TR editor) on 12/19/2005 at 4:33 PM
1
Guest (Max) on 12/18/2005 at 10:50 AM
1
However, an entire unnoticed problem is bias in the wikipedia. It is not so much about factual errors, but rather the supremacy of political belief systems. While this is not a big deal in the US wiki, it is in Europe. I have seen that socialist content doesnt allow any criticism on their pages, while they censor anything that goes beyond their political scheme. This might be a big problem in the future and is why I abstain from using any social science pages from the Wiki.
Guest (Sly) on 12/19/2005 at 9:49 AM
1
When you use censorship to tell the truth, its only the truth of the censor.
Guest (Sly) on 12/19/2005 at 9:49 AM
1
When you use censorship to tell the truth, its only the truth of the censor.
Guest (Andy) on 12/19/2005 at 1:23 PM
1
Guest (Eric Hellweg) on 12/20/2005 at 3:43 PM
1
Guest (Eric Hellweg) on 12/20/2005 at 3:43 PM
1
Guest (Andy) on 12/19/2005 at 5:47 PM
1
Guest (Aaron E. Klemm) on 12/16/2005 at 2:11 AM
1
Second, your conclusion is a bit overblown. Maybe Wikipedia *doesnt* have to adopt new tactics. I would argue the process is working despite recent and occasional problems.
The information and usefulness of Wikipedia content is improving daily--so whats wrong?
Guest (Ivor Smith) on 12/16/2005 at 5:48 PM
1
Guest (James) on 12/18/2005 at 4:30 AM
1
Guest (Max) on 12/18/2005 at 10:50 AM
1
However, an entire unnoticed problem is bias in the wikipedia. It is not so much about factual errors, but rather the supremacy of political belief systems. While this is not a big deal in the US wiki, it is in Europe. I have seen that socialist content doesnt allow any criticism on their pages, while they censor anything that goes beyond their political scheme. This might be a big problem in the future and is why I abstain from using any social science pages from the Wiki.
Guest (Andy) on 12/19/2005 at 1:23 PM
1