Home page
About Us          Leadership          Services          News          Weblog          Contact Us
Strategic Public Relations To Make Your Business Bloom
 
 

Monday, December 12, 2005

Wikipedia Prankster Exposed -- But This Is Only the Beginning

From the Nashville Tennessean:

The mysterious person behind an "Internet character assassination" of veteran local journalist John Seigenthaler is a Nashvillian who said yesterday he never imagined that what started out as a joke would cause pain and ignite national debate.

Brian Chase, 38, said he created a fake online biography of Seigenthaler in May -- linking the man to the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy -- to play a trick on his co-worker. He said he didn't know that the Web site, a free Internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia, was used as a serious reference tool.

Hoo-boy. More background here and here. This story isn't over by a long shot; it's bigger than Seigenthaler now.

Update: As if to prove the point, Romenesko published a letter today outlining some of Wikipedia's shortcomings; it's well worth a read. As the writer puts it, "It must be admitted that what John Seigenthaler accomplished was letting the cat out of the bag."

She adds:

Egalitarian editing may be a noble goal, but the reality is that if Wikipedia is to truly fulfill its promise, it needs a way to vet contributors, to let users know whether an entry on neuroscience was written and edited by a senior professor, a student who just took Psych 101, or a layperson who's paraphrasing an old issue of Scientific American. Certainly prankster Brian Chase's initial belief that Wikipedia was a joke site says a great deal about how some of its entries appear to the general public.

Technorati tags: , , ,

2 Comments:

  • Wikipedia can be used as A source. Not as THE source. Its open editing policy allows for many voices to get into the production of knowledge that are otherwise left out of the britannica. Much like we don't quote neuroscience from the 1893 edition of britannica, we shouldn't start an operation based on the 2005 entry on neuroscience either.
    If someone is looking to wikipedia as a sole source for info, you are making the same mistake as the guy who thought he could use it for a practical joke. It is not a replacement for britannica. It's just another tool, with advantages and disadvantages.

    By Blogger dave cormier, at 12/13/2005  

  • I love wikipedia, even when it's wrong.

    Check out this joint wikipedia/google search thingy
    I made for a home page.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/18/2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 

 
Copyright 2006 Idea Grove