Wikipedia: flawed and irresponsible?

[UNIVERSE TODAY]

I read an interesting article in USA Today which got me thinking about its potential for charactor assasination. I have a personal interest in this subject which has been flamed by personal experience. An internet stalker has been using me as the subject of a hate campaign for years and I've learned the hard way it's virtually impossible to get any justice. Responding with corrections and pointing out their true motivations can take up every minute of every day as these trolls seem to thrive on the feedback. They seemingly have nothing better to do while I on the other hand would much rather be researching an interesting topic.

A false Wikipedia biography.

By John Seigenthaler

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. 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."

— Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable.

I'm not talking about adding harmless erroneous comments like "he has a big nose" but truly malicious information purposely intended to cause harm to someones reputation. There is no way anybody can be certain on any given day that information available at Wikipedia is either accurate or given with the right intentions. Reporters are supposed to be unbiased and while I know this is impossible there should atleast be some semblance of responsibility. I've quoted Wiki numerous times in the past but now I'm just not sure its reliable enough to be trusted as a source of news or real data.

Should it even be allowed to continue? People are sued every day over less harmful libelous statements than some of the thousands available to unwary readers at Wiki.

 

[invert_nexus]

 

[perplexity]

An internet stalker has been using me as the subject of a hate campaign for years and I've learned the hard way it's virtually impossible to get any justice. Responding with corrections and pointing out their true motivations can take up every minute of every day as these trolls seem to thrive on the feedback. They seemingly have nothing better to do while I on the other hand would much rather be researching an interesting topic.

I have experienced this sort of thing, the obsessive ad hominem.

Round about 2002 I put a lot of voluntary work into the aftermath to 9/11/2001 but I have since withdrawn completely from the subject. I had mistakenly thought that a unbiased objective view would be of some general use and interest. The trouble then is the impossibility of proving anything to an ego with too much already invested in a particular opinion.

Everybody does it to some extent, the adjustment of their own perception of reality to fit habitual preconceptions.

"A man can be a pure logician only if it makes him feel good." (William Ross Ashby)

drafting errors corrected:

 

[Absane]

It's nothing new. Wiki was used in the past election season to make local candidates look bad. Sad thing is, it was done by the opponent and not a voter.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

wiki... cannot be trusted.. i have tried to use it as a refrence material source..

for say electronic theory... and what i have found is that often.. the information is simply so badly presented... or it is simply wrong.

and written by people who dont really know the subject.

thus... i do not use it.

-MT

 

[Absane]

Care to provide an example?

Articles to get debated, and at times closed until the issues are resolved.

 

[Blue_UK]

I have found wikipedia to be of tremendous value - it's articles sometimes very clearly laid out. I only really use it for highly technical stuff, which I assume is never found by vandals. I am amazed how really obscure stuff can have such huge articles.

I would not trust wikipedia, however, for highly contensious issues.

 

[Ophiolite]

A recent study found wikipedia contained fewer errors than Encyclopedia Brittanica, and had the benefit of a) being more current b) having the facility for rapid correction of those errors.
Google through New Scientist in the last six months for details of the study.

 

[s0meguy]

Most sensitive articles are now locked. They can't be edited unless a moderator does it based on comments in the talk section of an article.

 

[Mystech]

I hear all of this harping on Wikipedia, and sure some concerns are valid, but I feel that that is best addressed by going into wikipedia fully understanding how it works and that yes, some of what you read may well be written by someone with an agenda, or who doesn't really know what they're talking about.

That being said it's extremely rare that I run into something on Wikipedia which happens to be objectionably false, stupid, or poorly written. I find the service to be amazingly useful, and frankly one of the most important sites on the world wide web - indeed along with google I think these Wikimedia guys are some of the most high-minded individuals dedicated to making the ideal of the internet as a tool for the free-flow of information a reality.

 

[URI]

>> flamed by personal experience. An internet stalker has been using me as the subject of a hate campaign for years and I've learned the hard way it's virtually impossible to get any justice. >>

yes indeed.... I can't say any more........ it goes right to the top

 

[Ophiolite]

That being said it's extremely rare that I run into something on Wikipedia which happens to be objectionably false, stupid, or poorly written. I find the service to be amazingly useful, and frankly one of the most important sites on the world wide web - indeed along with google I think these Wikimedia guys are some of the most high-minded individuals dedicated to making the ideal of the internet as a tool for the free-flow of information a reality.

Well said. Wikipedia is not flawed; individuals who believe everything they read and who do not consult multiple sources are flawed.

 

[Roman]

A recent study found wikipedia contained fewer errors than Encyclopedia Brittanica, and had the benefit of a) being more current b) having the facility for rapid correction of those errors.
Google through New Scientist in the last six months for details of the study.

A slight correction.
It was in the areas of hard science that Encyclopedia Brittanica and wikipedia were comparable. When it came to politics and social science, wikipedia compared poorly. However, information on stuff like Star Trek and Lord of the Rings was much more complete in wikipedia.

 

[(Q)]

for say electronic theory... and what i have found is that often.. the information is simply so badly presented... or it is simply wrong.

That's funny, when I do a search on 'electronic theory' in Wikepedia, I get the following message:

"No page with that title exists."

It's no wonder you don't find that site useful.