[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    Re: [WikiEN-l] Most read US newspaper blasts Wikipedia
From:       "Ilya N." <ilyanep () gmail ! com>
Date:       2005-12-01 23:55:33
Message-ID: af9c32bf0512011555p46f522fcn5be23a52307ae0d4 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Calls for a bs: namespace ;)

Anyways, I think this was a failiure on both sides.

Mr. Seigenthaler for perhaps blowing this a little out of proportion (for a
while there it shounded like he wanted wikipedia held legally responsibly).

Wikipedia for not detecting something obviously false after almost a third
of a year on what I would imagine could be at least read once every while

On 11/30/05, Rob <gamaliel8@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect the crap information inserted into the John
> Seigenthaler article was part of a general trend of a
> group of JFK conspiracy theorists who have used
> Wikipedia as a dumping ground for their more
> farfetched speculations.  I've spend a good chunk of
> my WP time over the last year cleaning up as much of
> this stuff as I could possibly stand, and in fact
> rewriting much of the Lee Harvey Oswald article was my
> first major WP project.
>
> Even if this has nothing to do with the conspiracy
> buffs, it is part of a much larger problem, which is
> that every unsourced text dump by an anon seems to be
> treated as holy writ and uncritically accepted.  While
> we should apply WP:accept good faith to editors, we
> should apply a lot more skepticism to unsourced info
> dumps, the source of many problems involving libel and
> copyright violations and just good old fashioned
> inaccuracy. We have a culture of openness and DIYism
> and all those good things, but I'm not convinced we
> have a culture of quality control yet. How could any
> halfway decent editor see a passage like "For a brief
> time, he was thought to have been directly involved in
> the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his
> brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven" and not think
> "Hmmm, something's wrong here, at the very least it is
> totally unsourced".
>
> Maybe the problem is simply that an article like John
> Seigenthaler Sr. is too obscure to get a lot of eyes
> on it.  It appears that between the crap insertion and
> the insertion of a copyvio bio (possibly by
> Siegenthaler himself?) months later, only one editor
> edited the article.  Perhaps we could just chalk this
> all up to obscurity, but there are too many of the
> same type of problems with articles that aren't as
> obscure that we shouldn't just write this one off as
> an anomaly.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]