I mostly use Wiki as a pop culture encyclopedia, or just to get a basic idea of someone or something when I don’t feel like doing more extensive research. (Usually for my own knowledge, like someone mentions say, a famous historic personality, I may look up that individual on Wiki just to get an idea of who he was.)
Cool, learn something new everyday.
Good for refreshers too. I need a quick concise refresher on Brain Boru today and Wiki delivered well.
Let’s quote Wikipedia on Seigenthaler case!
Indeed you were whooshed in a way, as the point of that post was that Wikipedia does look professional and reliable, and that it, in fact, usually is; at least when just the front page and the featured articles are concerned. Of course, when the average Brian finds out that he himself, with no qualifications in anything, can write a new article just by pressing the edit button, they might actually think it’s just a part of some big joke, like the guy in this case claims.
A small correction - the offending article was created by a user with only the IP address, i.e. the guy didn’t create an account, just made a one-click edit.
The thing with purging history or, typically, deleting the article altogether (which deletes the history too) and starting it from scratch is interesting. So in Seigenthaler case every false information is going to be deleted from Wikipedia by administrators, as opposed to just deleting it from the article but leaving it in the history, like it’s typically done in case of vandalism. Because this stuff stays in the page history, for example Wikipedia’s calling the Norwegian Prime Minister a paedophile who served a year in prison for child molestation, is still available for anyone to read in the article history, even though that claim is removed from the article (after staying there for almost a full day, apparently vandalism fighters aren’t that quick). This stuff raises a question of guidelines, or lack of them: if Jimbo’s only bothered to delete offending false information if someone makes a big fuss about it in the mainstream media or threatens to sue, isn’t that a bit unfair for the less lawsuit-happy public figures?
However, for anyone familiar with Wikipedia, calling this “character assassination” is fairly pointless. Other media also are capable of similar style; when making an article about a public figure they sometimes interview people who, as they say, are or have been his/her subjects, and conveniently remain anonymous. Then you see the article using these sources who have said that the person in question is rude or dishonest and always angry, treating other people badly. Common folk then reads this and soon there will be rumours that this public figure is borderline psychotic etc. We simply can’t always hold such article accountable, and the same holds true for WP, where everyone’s an editor. Uncyclopedia, though, is different. For instance their Seigenthaler article is spot on.
Well, it does not take a threat of a lawsuit to purge history. It takes a specitic request if no one notices that the information warrants purging. Very little actually does warrant purging. Having information in the history of an article does not give it all that much credence, less than “<Insert name> here is blows geese, wrens and sheep for fun” as graffiti in an alley, and if it is not credible to start with and deleted from the actual article quickly, then unless a request is made there is not much reason to remove it from the history of the article. However, information that is threatening certainly will be removed once it is noticed regardless of whether the person whose information it is complains. I believe that home addresses added to articles have been removed from articles and histories as soon as they are noticed.
To be fair, we are talking about removing (or at least concealing) vandalism edits from article histories. The details are still being worked out, though.
Nature study covered side-by-side comparison of scientific topics
Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
Highlights:
Jim