Wikopedia exposed

hoosier · #1 11-30-2005, 01:34 PM

Big negative story about Wikopedia in the USAToday editorial section today (11/30). Somebody posted a fictional biography of some RFKennedy aid. Although Wikopedia eventually deleted it, they offered no help in tracking down the author, and ISP won't help either.

KSig RC · #2 11-30-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
Big negative story about Wikopedia in the USAToday editorial section today (11/30). Somebody posted a fictional biography of some RFKennedy aid. Although Wikopedia eventually deleted it, they offered no help in tracking down the author, and ISP won't help either.

I'm sure you mean 'wikipedia' - now, that said, the term 'wiki' has a very specific meaning (especially with reference to the Internet), and I'd guess that the editorial was written by someone too old/out of touch/technophobic to understand how that meaning would apply to a 'wikipedia'.

Not to mention that the editorial came from McPaper, which is essentially the asshole of the journalistic world (although I pick it up almost every day to read over lunch, for precisely that reason).

Wikipedia is a fanastic source of information, but one must consider its caveats (which the organization is quite open about, I'll add).

Deke4life · #3 11-30-2005, 01:47 PM

News at the pace of the internet is very powerful, but this is an example of its deficiency.
This reminds me of the drudge report... Matt Drudge gets the story first very often, but he also retracts stories on a regular basis.
Though overall, I believe that internet media/info/news is beneficial becuase of its speed, and should be embraced (critically).

lauralaylin · #4 11-30-2005, 02:01 PM

I know little about wikipedia, but I thought one of the things that made it different was that anyone could change anything about it at any time. Therefore, you get a lot of people improving the entries, but sometimes people doing the opposite. So I don't really see why they should figure out who wrote the fake RFK post. Anyone using the site should know that potentially things are wrong.

My brother has run into some interesting things on the candidates he's worked for/against during recent elections. He'd check his candidate every day during the last election to make sure wrong items weren't thrown in.

_Q_ · #5 11-30-2005, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
Big negative story about Wikopedia in the USAToday editorial section today (11/30). Somebody posted a fictional biography of some RFKennedy aid. Although Wikopedia eventually deleted it, they offered no help in tracking down the author, and ISP won't help either.

Interesting story. Wikipedia has a lot of useful information, but also some risks. Something like this was addressed in one of their FAQs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._this_service.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiAndIllegalMaterial
Basically, they'd been saying, "Well, something like this could happen, but our community would fix it Real Fast." This usually works, but it's not foolproof. And problems are often caught through the "recent changes" page, which means that if garbage isn't caught right after being posted, it's more likely to stay there.

Lil' Hannah · #6 11-30-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
Big negative story about Wikopedia in the USAToday editorial section today (11/30). Somebody posted a fictional biography of some RFKennedy aid. Although Wikopedia eventually deleted it, they offered no help in tracking down the author, and ISP won't help either.

SHOCKING!

_Q_ · #7 11-30-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lauralaylin
I know little about wikipedia, but I thought one of the things that made it different was that anyone could change anything about it at any time. Therefore, you get a lot of people improving the entries, but sometimes people doing the opposite. So I don't really see why they should figure out who wrote the fake RFK post. Anyone using the site should know that potentially things are wrong.

My brother has run into some interesting things on the candidates he's worked for/against during recent elections. He'd check his candidate every day during the last election to make sure wrong items weren't thrown in.

It isn't even a matter of whether Wikipedia itself should figure out who trashed the guy. Since all they have is the IP address, they really can't. Since Bellsouth is the ISP, they could (or should be able to) track down the user by going through their logs.

Lil' Hannah · #8 11-30-2005, 02:14 PM

Are they supposed to hunt down every person that ever adds incorrect information, knowingly or unknowingly?

RACooper · #9 11-30-2005, 03:28 PM

OMG errors or false info on Wiki! Who would have ever, in a million years, thought that a user edited online encyclopedia could be exploited or contain errors! Thank the Lord for the diligent work of USAToday in exposing this hidden secret!

>>turning off sarcasm>>

Seriouosly I can't even believe this is a story - I just sorta assumed that most intelligent people approached Wiki cautiously as a source.

Oh wait... I know why hoosier's up in arms about Wiki - it's one of those millions of sources that list Fascists and Nazis as right-wing as opposed to left-wing