Irony Alert: Article Blaming Wikipedia For Unreliable Info Gets Its Facts Wrong
from the funny-how-that-works dept
This certainly isn't the first time something like this has happened, but a news article that a tribunal ruling in Australia was set aside for relying on Wikipedia, actually gets the story wrong. The tribunal ruling wasn't based on Wikipedia, but a totally different wiki-based encyclopedia. Now, if that article with the incorrect info had been on, say, Wikipedia, as soon as this had been noticed it would have been corrected. But, instead, you have an article that's been online for quite a while and remains with incorrect info. It's just extra amusing that that incorrect info is falsely blaming Wikipedia for being unreliable, when this article proves that just because wikis are editable and news sites aren't, it doesn't mean that one is inherently more unreliable than the other.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
You just have to
Wiki-based pages are brilliant - IF you know how to use them correctly.
i.e Understand that the information is a collective effort
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reliability
One big problem I have noticed in news is that often people who write articles are not specialists in that particular field. So a news article about wikis may be written by someone who barely knows how to use a wordprocessor.
This problem coupled with the sensationalist trend news is following tends to result in some very big journalistic mistakes.
Even when facts are used they are often taken totally out of context or era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why wiki is better
When a story hits TV with false info, there is virtually never any retraction.
When a story hits Wikipedia with false info, the correction appears in place, with a history of what the page used to say, and a log of the discussion surrounding the facts.
Which do you prefer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why wiki is better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two cents worth
I guess the writer belives everything they see in writing.
Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: two cents worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
# of Comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mysterious Comment Number
Yet the misnumbered comment mystery carries on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mysterious Comment Number
All I get is
Mysterious Comment Number by j0rg3 on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 8:20am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite as wrong as that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really about wiki
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinionated know-nothings :-)
...or did I miss the sarcasm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Frollo, the villain, stands upon a gargoyle. He raises his sword to strike Esmeralda, and says, “And He shall smite the wicked and plunge them into the fiery pit!” At that moment, the gargoyle breaks off, sending Frollo falling to his death into the courtyard, filled with molten lead that Quasimodo had spilled to stop the oncoming guards. The irony is that Frollo’s line is used in reference to Esmeralda, but instead it winds up applying to Frollo himself as he plunges into the fiery pit of molten lead.
Situations resembling poetic justice, but lacking the aspect of justice, may also be ascribed to the irony of fate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]