Interesting article by a person claiming to be falsely accused by Wikipedia article.
Picky, picky, picky. I mean who hasn’t been thought to have been involved in the Kennedy assassinations for a brief time?
Well, isn’t the great advantage of Wikipedia that he himself could have gone in and removed the offending statement? Without even bothering to contact executives?
So anyone can revise anything as they see fit?
What use is the damn thing?
That’s the thing I just can’t get past with Wikipedia. Most people are idiots, and many are flat out liars or are biased by some agenda. Giving them free reign to contibute to something that is becoming considered a trusted source with no editing whatsoever is utterly ludicrous and promotes ignorance more than combats it, IMHO.
I just wrote my first Wikipedia article. I was amazed to see my article appear, as I had written it, immediately I had hit the ‘submit’ button. I thought there was meant to be some editorial control?
I immediately dismiss anyone’s argument if their only cite if Wikipedia.
Until they can get some fact-checking, it’s a useless resource.
What do you mean a trusted source?
Of course it shouldn’t be used as a trusted source.
It is a tool that should lead you to more information.
Especially with the external links to get you started that most articles have.
It is not meant to be used to write reports from; it is a quick and mostly excellent reference.
Jim
I know that; you know that - you think every idiot out there knows that?
Well no, you are correct. Otherwise Snopes wouldn’t have any reason for being.
I forgot how many people would be capable of believing 100% of what’s in Wiki. :smack:
Sorry,
Jim
They’re just too busy writing articles to realize it 
There is…they have moderators who patrol entry changes. If they see something that doesn’t suit them, they change the entry back to the previous version and send a warning to the individual who made the changes.
I’ve found the Wikipedia to be generally accurate if you need to look up something quickly. Of course, the less controversial the subject, the better information you’ll get, and I would always want to check out some of the odder details with other sources.
It is far from useless. Nearly all the information I’ve checked on turned out to be accurate. Bad information gets replaced pretty quickly.
As for Siegenthaler, all he had to do was delete the information. It would have been gone immediately. And Wikipedia proudly states they do no editing; that’s the entire point. How can he not understand that? How on Earth would he suggest they monitor it?
As for determining the user from the IP, Wikipedia doesn’t have that information – it would be at the ISP that uses that IP address. If Siegenthaler got a court order, he might be able to get the user at that time, though it’s just as likely the information had long been destroyed. Even if not, it would still be difficult to pinpoint who was actually using that computer at the time the message was posted (and if it were a public use computer, it would have been impossible).
What you have is someone who’s clueless about the Wikipedia and the Internet.
OK, this is even weirder. I just edited someone’s article (corrected a spelling), and that appeared immediately, without me even logging in. How can they get in touch with me if all they have is my IP address?
That is not how it works; at least half my edits were without being logged in.
You edit, it updates and usually there are other interested parties who verify that defamation/graffiti is not occurring.
I don’t know for sure, {KellyM is the SDMB expert on wikipedia} but I believe they can and do monitor for edit wars. (constant changes to a page back and forth).
Jim
I’m expert-compared-to-the-average-guy in some fairly obscure topics (for instance, hentai). No one’s around to check my edits, most of the time. I haven’t done a lot of editing on Wikipedia, but I have done some, and I’ve generally found it to be fairly accurate on the topics I’m interested in.
I hate to be snarky about this, but the very fact the article was bad for 132 days indicates how little anyone cared about John Seigenthaler. I am glad he found it and has gotten it corrected, but this is using the less than 1% to condemn the whole of Wiki.
Wiki is a tool.
It is not perfect.
It is far from complete.
It generally offers good information with multiple viewpoints.
This is something that is rare for most reference materials.
Please think over the last point for those who just condemn it out of hand.
Jim
I wonder if this guy hangs out with Ric Romero on the weekends.
I’m not surprised about Wikipedia.
But what bothers me are the two other sites copying the articles verbatim and calling themselves answers.com and references.com.
I’d be curious to know whether they mention the origin of the information they display and the fact that it isn’t reliable. I didn’t notice any such mention on the first of these two sites, and I find this extremely disingeneous.
Well as far as I can tell answers.com is just a glorified search engine. Reference.com links directly to Wiki.
Wiki is useful for a jumping off point or info on fairly non-controversial issues. I make it a practice to at least skim the discussion page.
What is suprising is how many times you read a discussion and someone is “The date is wrong, the whatchamicallit was introduced in 1927 not 1972” yet that person doesn’t make the chage.