Wikipedia's Circular Logic Pops Up Again
from the where-does-truth-come-from? dept
Germany has a new minister of economic affairs, named Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. That's a mouthful, and apparently a number of German media outlets went to the guy's Wikipedia entry for some help. But some prankster had added a "Wilhelm" in the middle, which got printed in several places. The change on Wikipedia was noticed and corrected, but then reverted to the incorrect Wilhelm version -- with one of the press stories cited as the source. So, somebody inserts an incorrect "fact" into Wikipedia, the "fact" gets reprinted elsewhere based on the Wikipedia entry, gets correctly removed from Wikipedia, then incorrectly reinserted using one of the incorrect articles as "proof" of its veracity. That sounds pretty similar to establishing your newsworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia by getting a newspaper article written about how you're not in Wikipedia. All's well that ends well, though, since the minister's correct name now appears in his entry. But as Wikipedia continues to be perceived by more and more people as a very authoritative source, this sort of incident is likely to happen again.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMHO problems like these can be taken care of once wikipedia sets a standard for there citation/proof.
as far as the "not famous enough" case i did enjoy the irony in the case of the Band but i don't see a problem in it, there wasn't enough ppl in the Wiki crowd that new said band which was evidence that they weren't famous enough, and the newspaper article showed them there error (some might say it made them famous enough) and they got added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, what it really is best at is pointing you at good sources. Because lets face it, unless you know already what you are looking for or have a great librarian you aren't going to find all of these sources easily in a library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sickipedia: gaming Wikipedia for fun or for profit
It works fine while we have diligent editors willing to correct and update. What happens when those editors get sick, lost interest or shuffle off this mortal coil? When there is no watchdog, who decides which articles are "locked" and which remain open for free editing?
Wikipedia as it is today is not a sustainable model for a repository of human knowledge into the indefinite future IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sickipedia: gaming Wikipedia for fun or for profit
what happens when the pranksters are more committed than the "watchdogs"?
have you ever read the discussions behind an article that is being contested on it's neutrality? it all comes down to who is the most committed to seeing their writing survive.
the editors of the "authoritative" publications can be biased due to political or financial reasons, and it becomes a contest of wills between the writer and the editor. usually the editor wins, but we almost never see that discussion.
wikipedia is a great tool, but it's just one tool. you use wikipedia the way you use any other encyclopedia, at the beginning of the process to get a bird's eye view of the subject matter.
if you only use one tool in your research, you are asking for trouble. it's the same with news outlets, relying on just one paper or show leaves you vulnerable to inaccuracy and propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sickipedia: gaming Wikipedia for fun or for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifth Edition
Because other sources of information are so much more reliable and fact checking is therefore not needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fifth Edition
Wiki technology is powerful and incredibly useful in many applications. But Wikipedia's reach and influence runs the risk of perpetuating inadequate or flawed research and knowledge. This derives from its model, but does not mean all wikis are at fault.
Just because Wikipedia has problems does not mean that "other sources of information are so much more reliable and fact checking is therefore not needed." Such a supposition is frankly ludicrous and this kind of sarcasm does not contribute to a meaningful argument.
ALL sources of information should be considered suspect until proven otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fifth Edition
-- Yes, my point exactly.
""other sources of information are so much more reliable and fact checking is therefore not needed." Such a supposition is frankly ludicrous and this kind of sarcasm does not contribute to a meaningful argument."
-- Oh but it does, for those with a sense of humor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And yet...
There are lots of reasons things go away on Wikipedia, sometimes it's political, but most times I've seen is because it just doesn't meet the guidelines they've set up. "Hearsay" is not considered verifiable or even accurate, even if you are a family member who knows it firsthand. And rightly so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikki wikki wow wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nearly a full morning- and No Python Reference?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDPqB9i1ScY
"Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern -schplenden -schlitter -crasscrenbon -fried -digger -dangle -dungle -burstein -von -knacker -thrasher -apple -banger -horowitz -ticolensic -grander -knotty -spelltinkle -grandlich -grumblemeyer -spelterwasser -kürstlich -himbleeisen -bahnwagen -gutenabend -bitte -eine -nürnburger -bratwustle -gerspurten -mit -zweimache -luber -hundsfut -gumberaber -shönendanker -kalbsfleisch -mittler -raucher von Hautkopft of Ulm."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nearly a full morning- and No Python Reference?
I was wondering when the Monty Python material would show up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikibooks has a major problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no no - you did it all wrong ...
Wi we're tha papurs evin yousing wekepeededeeah az ah kreddobel soars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg
STOP BEING A DOUCHEBAG! TRY:
"Karl T. Guttenberg"
IT HAS A NICE RING TO IT...
putz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
big problem with the media - information being copied around with no checking
Problems could largely be avoided if the media took the academic habit of citing sources for their claims - which is possible with hypertext without using up space. Readers could then see that most news report are not original and are largely re-hash of newswires. Readers could see how two "independent" newspaper articles really took their information from one same Associated Press piece, for instance.
"My professors insisted that we always verify our data by at least two sources that do not have a referential link (i.e. one article references the other in it's bibliography or quotes)."
That's the main problem with today's press. The media largely copies fact from each other, with no attempt at independent verification. I've seen newspapers reprinting false information that would have been detected if only somebody there had taken the effort to launch a Web browser and run a Google search...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia is not a source, it's a pointer to other sources. Wikipedia declines original research and reporting (yeah, right!). It's group-vetted testimony on other sources, and it's constantly in flux, so anyone using it should cite specific page versions and date.
The newspaper deserves the bonehead award.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-Christ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]