Masked Wikipedia Author Revealed
from the not-so-threatening-after-all dept
In the last two weeks there's been a huge amount of attention paid to John Seigenthaler Sr.'s bashing of Wikipedia, after someone wrote an obviously false story about him in his bio -- even to the point where Seigenthaler (a well known advocate of the First Amendment) has talked about having laws changed to put the burden of proof being placed on the accused, rather than accusers. As we said earlier, the story is nothing new. People can write whatever they want in Wikipedia -- and thus, you should always be willing to look at the info critically. However, that doesn't discount the overall value of Wikipedia, as some like to imply. As this story took on a life of its own, the main issue was who wrote the false bio of Seigenthaler, and now someone has come forward, saying it was a joke for a friend, and he has apologized directly to Seigenthaler, saying he meant no harm. Seigenthaler, to his credit, has accepted the apology and says nothing more should be done (and also asked that the man be reinstated to his job -- which he quit to avoid having the negative publicity reflect badly on his employer). However, this whole episode still raises a few questions. We're still confused why Seigenthaler felt the need to spend so much time tracking down the person and then writing a public editorial about the issue when, instead, he could have just corrected the story. At the same time, for all the people talking about how much harm the site has done -- it's not clear what actual "harm" was actually caused by this particular article being on the site. Finally, for all the worries about "anonymous" writers, it didn't turn out to be all that difficult to track down this particular writer. Update: Digg points to an apparent attempt to build a class action lawsuit against Wikipedia. Hopefully, it's satire, but these days, you never know. Wikipedia is clearly protected under existing laws. If you're providing an open forum, it's the individuals who are responsible for the content they post, not the forum owner.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Track Down???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Track Down???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The why
Because he likely wanted it confirmed in the public's mind, without a doubt, the truth of the matter. If he had taken it upon himself to simply correct the story without clearing his name as well, there would have been a segment of the population, like the conspiracist bloggers or something, who would've gone on and on till doomsday rehashing these tiring allegations. Now, it's been put to rest.. which is good for everyone.
It's also a good lesson for others who like to post their b.s. to wiki, thinking they won't be found out.
Still, keeping wiki public and open to all is important, and the sole reason the concept has been so successful. If too many restrictions are put in place on the ability to post content, based solely on fallout from silly debacles like this, the whole idea of wiki will be short lived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just an ad revenue generator?
My assumption after looking at the Wikipedia class action site is that it's one of 2 things.
- The site is sponsored and maintained by people who remain ignorant of the law regarding public forums.
- A blatant attempt to generate traffic for their Google ads.
Considering the lack of examples where Wikipedia actually harmed anyone themselves, I suspect the latter. The only example listed is Seigenthaler's, which would tend to drive their traffic from searching for him when looking into the story.[ link to this | view in chronology ]