Arguments about Wikipedia’s value and authority will rage for quite a while, but it’s interesting to see where the lines are being drawn.
On the one had we’ve got a 12 year-old pointing out errors in Encyclopaedia Britannica (via Many2Many) and now on the other side we’ve got John Seigenthaler, a former editorial page editor at USA Today, piping mad about some libelous content in his Wikipedia biography page.
Now, I have to agree with Seigenthaler in as much as I would never want anybody to make such claims against me, and I’d probably consider my legal options in such a matter, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who gets a chuckle over the matter. I mean Seigenthaler is the founder of The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, after all.
It all sounds the same as the Attack of the Blogs story in November issue of Forbes Magazine. That story began ominously:
Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo.
But Forbes and Seigenthaler both conveniently ignore the fact that lies, libel and invective are common in other, older media. And Seigenthaler should know well the limitations of editorial authority over the millions of words published by hundreds of writers in a newspaper every day. Mistakes are made, and yes, counterfactual material is often slipped in. (Sadly, it’s also worth noting that real lynch mobs of the post-reconstruction South often enjoyed the support of their local newspapers.)
And unlike those old media, corrections are easy and quick, and in context with the original information. Take a look at how the Wikipedia entry addresses Seigenthaler’s complaints as an example.
Yes, the decision structure around these social applications is different from old media, but that doesn’t make it any more wrong or bad or dangerous. It is, perhaps, a comment on the obscurity of Seigenthaler’s biography that it went uncorrected for four months, but it’s also a comment on how responsive the system is that accommodated Seig’s corrections so quickly. Now, imagine how much Seigenthaler could contribute to Wikipedia. Imagine how much richer our online community could be with his participation?
And that’s what Seigenthaler and the Forbes article miss: the blogosphere and Wikipedia are built by those show up to the game. People and companies who ignore it do so at the peril, but there are many examples of success for those who participate.
wikipedia, wiki, social, social software, community, communities, moderation, editor, editorial control, Seigenthaler , John Seigenthaler, usa today, editorial, opinion, slander, libel, blog, blogs, bloggers, forbes, fear, findability, google economy
Posted December 5, 2005 by Casey Bisson
Categories: Politics & Controversy. Tags: blog, bloggers, blogs, communities, community, editor, editorial, editorial control, fear, findability, forbes, google economy, John Seigenthaler, libel, moderation, opinion, Seigenthaler, slander, social, social software, usa today, wiki, wikipedia.
7 Comments
Comments RSS
TrackBack Identifier URI
User contributed tags for this post:
timothy treadwell real death audio (402) - real death audio (141) - Tim Treadwell real death audio (82) - real death audio timothy treadwell (66) - timmy treadwell (59) - timothy treadwell and real death audio (55) - bear attack audio (55) - grizzly man real death audio (54) - treadwell real death audio (48) - tim attack bears audio (43) - real death audio treadwell (42) - real death audio grizzly (33) - Timothy Treadwell Death Audio Download (31) - tim treadwell bear attack audio (30) - timothy treadwell death audio (29) - timothy treadwell audio download DEATH (28) - tim treadwell death tape download (27) - real death audio Tim Treadwell (25) - timothy treadwell wiki (24) - grizzly man death audio download (23) - timmy treadwell death (21) - real death audio bear attack (21) - real death audio grizzly man (20) - timothy treadwell death (20) - tim treadwell audio death (19) - real death audio of Timothy Treadwell (16) - timothy treadwell audio (16) - TREADWELL bear attack audio (15) - real death audio of tim treadwell (14) - real death audio of grizzly man (14) - timothy treadwell audio bear attack (14) - treadwell bear killing audio (13) - treadwell audio download (13) - treadwell bears (12) - download Timothy Treadwell death audio (12) - timothy treadwell wikipedia (12) - timothy treadwell bear attack audio (11) - tim treadwell bear attack download audio (11) - tim treadwell wikipedia (11) - hear sounds of timothy treadwell attack (10) - timothy treadwell audio bear attack download (10) - listen grizzly attack (10) - Tim Treadwell bear attack listen to audio (10) - Timothy Treadwell bear attack audio download (10) - Timothy Treadwell sound of death download (10) - wikipedia deception (10) - audio Treadwell (10) - timothy treadwell attack audio download (9) - TIMOTHY TREADWELL REAL DEATH TAPE (9) - timothy treadwell real death audio tape (9) - grizzly man wiki (9) - listen download attack bear treadwell (9) - audio of bear attack (9) - Timothy Treadwell s real death audio (8) - treadwell death audio (8) - grizzly attack audio download (8) - grizzly man wikipedia (8) - tim treadwell 141 (8) - download Timothy Treadwell bear video (8) - Timothy Treadwell death download (7) - timoth treadwell real death audio (7) - Timothy Treadwell scam (7) - real death lynch video jessica (7) - treadwell attack audio download (7) - Timothy Treadwell bear attack download (7) - Tim Treadwell audio of being attacked (7) - treadwell death audio download (7) - timothy treadwell audio download (7) - Timothy Treadwell audio bear attack listen (6) - timothy treadwell biography (6) - Tim Treadwell bear attack download (6) - Timothy Treadwell death attack audio (6) - the death of timothy treadwell (6) - hear audio of timothy treadwell bear attack (6) - tim treadwell bear audio (6) - HEAR Timothy Treadwell S BEAR ATTACK (6) - Timothy Treadwell sound (6) - grizzly man audio of death for download (6) - timothy treadwells real death audio (6) - timothy treadwell the real death audio (6) - Timothy Treadwell fraud (6) - download grizzly man recording death (6) - treadwell wiki (6) - treadwell scam (6) - timothy treadwell s real death audio tape (6) - timmy treadwell bio (6) - bear death audio (6) - timothy treadwell attack audio death (6) - tim bear attack audio download (6) - Timothy Treadwell grizzly attacK audio download (6) - treadwell death download (6) - audio death of timothy treadwell download (6) - wikipedia is bad (6) - timothy treadwell s bear attack (6) - timothy treadwell of bear attack tape download (6) - Timothy Treadwell bear death listen (5) - Timothy Treadwell Bear Attack Audio Tape download (5) - wikipedia bear attacks (5) - timmy treadwell audio (5) - invective paragraph (5) - Treadwell bear death audio (5) - Grizzly Man Death Tape Download (5) - randy souther (5) - real death audio tape timothy treadwell (5) - grizzly man audio from death download (5) - Timothy Treadwell real audio downloads (5) - grizzly bear death video download (5) - treadwell bear audio download (5) - hear timothy treadwell bear attack (5) - real death audio bear (5) - listen to grizzly man death audio (5) - bear attack audio listen (5) - download Timothy Treadwell audio (5) - bear attack audio download (5) - download audio of timothy treadwell bear killing (4) - listen to timothy treadwell bear attack audio (4) - listen to grizzly man real death audio (4) - timothy treadwell listen to audio of bear attack (4) - timothy treadwell controversy (4) - real audio of grizzly man death (4) - real audio death treadwell (4) - counterfactual wikipedia (4) - listen bear attack timothy treadwell (4) - wikipedia timothy treadwell (4) - film bear attack dead audio (4) - GRIZZLY MAN DEATH REAL AUDIO (4) - timmy treadwell death video download (4) - listen to bear attack on tape (4) - wikipedia (4) - hear tim treadwell attack audio (4) - timothy treadwell audio of attack download (4) - listen grizzly man audio death (4) - timothy treadwell audio bear (4) - wikipedia grizzly man (4) - Timothy Treadwell killing audio (4) - controversy (4) - timothy treadwell death tape download (4) - listen timothy treadwell bear attack video (4) - audio of grizzly Man attack download (4) - listen to bear attacks on tape (4) - treadwell bear audio death (4) - hear timothy treadwell real death audio (4) - bear attack real death audio (4) - Grizzly Man Death Sound Download (4) - treadwell real audio (4) - tim treadwell wiki (4) - listen to Treadwell attack audio (4) - download Timothy Treadwell Audio Taped Bear Attack (4) -
well, i only half agree there. the analogy between wikipedia and blogs isn’t a 1=1 equation. the huge difference is that wikipedia aims to be treated as a reliable source of information, suitable for research, while blogs are more on the op-ed side of things. As a teacher I’ve never seen anyone try to use a blog as a source, but I have seen wikipedia. And out of the four or so cases there has been at least one piece of bad info. I think my brother put it best– when I told him about wikipedia he looked at it and searched “ninjas.” The first part of the entry is basically one long set of contradictions to which he responded, “I’ve never been so confused about ninjas in all my life.” My point is that right now I would not let a student use wikipedia for anything more than background info (which must be cross-referenced). maybe one day wikipedia will be something folks can go to, but right now it is dangerous to treat things as fact when there status largely unverified. wikipedia is a house built on built on sand, maybe the sand will settle and it will become strong, but it also might get swept into the sea. While the idea that other sources can also be wrong is compelling, I think that speaks more to the need for those sources to increase editorial supervision. It certainly shouldn’t be used to excuse someone else’s bad information.
Excellent comments on the Wikipedia flap.
[...] Several recent cases have highlighted the potential problems. One article was revealed as falsely suggesting that a former assistant to US Senator Robert Kennedy may have been involved in his assassination. And podcasting pioneer Adam Curry has been accused of editing the entry on podcasting to remove references to competitors’ work. Curry says he merely thought he was making the entry more accurate. [...]
[...] The argument about Wikipedia versus Britannica continues to rage in libraryland. The questions are about authority and the likelihood of outright deception, of course, and a recent round brought up the limitations of peer review as exemplified in the 1989 cold fusion controversy, where two scientists claimed to have achieved a nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature. Randy Souther, from the University of San Francisco, asked us to look more carefully: FYI, cold fusion in 1989 was a media fiasco, but not a fraud. The research is still controversial, but continues today with publications in more than 50 peer-reviewed journals. But you would never realize this by reading Britannica’s one-paragraph article, which is stuck in 1989; Wikipedia’s gives a reasonable overview, and is up-to-date. [...]
[...] surely not the only one who smiles kindly and feels bad for those who look for some authority to “fix†Wikipedia, but take a look at the arguments about what is or is not offensive in Flickr and we find it: [...]
Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time – using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time – the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 – 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland
Hey- I’ve only used Wiki twice seriously.
Once was a completely factual error about one of our programs at the university (not malicious, but be omitting a certain important detail, they totally changed the nature of the program). Spent a half hour tracking this down on the internet myself- even though I’ve worked there for 30+ years and know I am correct. I still I still checked it out, mainly because I was apprehensive that someone in the university had provided the incorrect information.
Other time was while quiickly selecting the bios of three people (who are public figures, not “celebrities,” and the tone of the entries was blatantly biased.
So, should you do an update on your book, let me know.