Irony Alert: Article Blaming Wikipedia For Unreliable Info Gets Its Facts Wrong

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Wed, Jul 25th 2007 4:27am — Mike Masnick

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

Filed Under: wikipedia
Companies: wikipedia

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike F.M, 25 Jul 2007 @ 4:53am

You just have to
You just have to love it when stuff like this comes back to bite them on the ass.

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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2007 @ 6:04am

That's coincidence. Irony is putting your utmost trust into someone about to kill you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kel, 1 Aug 2007 @ 6:15pm
  
  Re:
  no that is actually irony
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsboy, 25 Jul 2007 @ 6:09am

Reliability
Even major news sources are wrong some of the time. Television news is especially poor.

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 ]
Wolfger, 25 Jul 2007 @ 6:48am

why wiki is better
When a story hits page 1 of the newspaper with false info, the retraction (if any) is on page 8, in small print.
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 ]
- Ron, 25 Jul 2007 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re: why wiki is better
  Exactly! (I prefer animated TV by the way--less facts to get wrong in the first place).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trouble Maker, 25 Jul 2007 @ 7:25am

two cents worth
But did the writer claim respondsibility for thier work? NOPE! Just blame someone else.

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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2007 @ 10:47am
  
  Re: two cents worth
  So that would make this post unreliable, wouldnt it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 25 Jul 2007 @ 7:28am

Reference
We had a special bond issue election yesterday. The day before that, we got a flier on our door from the opposition of the bond and the reasons why. One of their points was supported by a reference to Wikipedia. I immediately decided to vote yes. (OK, that really wasn't the only reason I voted yes) At least you could go to the said Wiki page and find the reference for that and put it into your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), 25 Jul 2007 @ 7:58am

# of Comments?
That's weird. It says above that there are 7 Comments but there are only 6. If the trend continues, it will say 8 Comments and only 7 will appear. Or I will be completely made to look like a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoeppner, 25 Jul 2007 @ 8:17am

the only sane way to use a wiki is to browse through it. then proceed to look at the used resources that they list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
j0rg3, 25 Jul 2007 @ 8:20am

Mysterious Comment Number
You still look like a fool for ever challenging the Chuck Norris, fool!

Yet the misnumbered comment mystery carries on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mkam, 25 Jul 2007 @ 9:08am
  
  Re: Mysterious Comment Number
  There are numbers on these comments. Where?
  
  All I get is
  
  Mysterious Comment Number by j0rg3 on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 8:20am
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mkam, 25 Jul 2007 @ 9:10am
    
    Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number
    Ah never mind I see. If you do threaded (like I do) you only get bullets. If you view in 'flattened' mode you see all the numbers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dennis, 25 Jul 2007 @ 11:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number
      Ooops.. thanks for pointing that out -- fixed the comment count bug now..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petr�a Mitchell, 25 Jul 2007 @ 9:07am

Not quite as wrong as that
Actually, the body of the article gets the source right-- the only error is in seeing something that looks and acts just like Wikipedia and assuming that it is, in fact, Wikipedia. We will probably have to live with this sort of linguistic drift, unless we want to get all anal and police our generic usages of "band-aid", "kleenex", and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 25 Jul 2007 @ 9:19am

Not really about wiki
The problem here was not with the fact that it was a wiki article. The problem was that the tribunal had used facts which were not relevant to the case. They made some assumptions about a statement that were wrong and got caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2007 @ 10:42am

I've had numerous problems with Wikipedia editors. They don't understand linux and seem to think everything should be written for the guy on the street. They want no technical information such as on higher math or statistics based on performance measurements. It's very frustrating to have them remove data and such. I have come to the conclusion blogs are the way of the future since we don't have to put up with opinionated know nothings there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2007 @ 3:06pm
  
  Opinionated know-nothings :-)
  ...some of the most opinionated know-nothings I know express themselves in the blogosphere
  
  ...or did I miss the sarcasm?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2007 @ 10:48am

I've had numerous problems with Wikipedia editors. They don't understand linux and seem to think everything should be written for the guy on the street. They want no technical information such as on higher math or statistics based on performance measurements. It's very frustrating to have them remove data and such. I have come to the conclusion blogs are the way of the future since we don't have to put up with opinionated know nothings there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
inc, 25 Jul 2007 @ 11:02am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
A typical use of irony of fate occurs in the climax of Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

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 ]