Jump to content

Talk:John Seigenthaler/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

This is a talk_page archive covering the day December 6 2005. Click on the first link under the page title to see current discussion, or click the second link for an overview of the archives. Please do not post new comments on this page.

Should Wikipedia be distributing in permanent form?

What must be cosidered here, is not just the fact that such a character asassination of John Seigenthaler occurred on this website, but as reported by CNN [5] and other media outlets, Jimmy Wales announced in early November that the content from this Web site was going to be made available in print form and burned onto CDs and DVDs. What would have happened if Seigenthaler hadn't caught this? What about others who might have been similarly attacked or articles where the content is filled with fabrications and have not yet been discovered? An article that can be edited is one thing, but should Wikipedia be distributing in permanent form (book/CD) something that has had no verification of any kind? - Ted Wilkes 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia policies. Dystopos 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ted, the print/CD/DVD version of Wikipedia, which is known as "Version 1.0", is to be painstakingly verified for this kind of thing before it's ever released. If you'd like more information about that project, please see Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. // Pathoschild 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm also guessing that lone articles that are not linked to from any other page on Wikipedia would probably not be included on the CD. Turnstep 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably not. Even assuming they were, they'd be put through the same verification. // Pathoschild 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I posed the question because the public announcement was made more than a month ago that a print/CD etc. version would "soon" be available yet no article has been locked, not even a Wikipedia:Featured article. - Ted Wilkes 15:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What Exactly happened here?

I'm not really sure where to put this but in light of the recent fiasco regarding this page, I feel that it's our responsibility at Wikipedia to look into the matter and see what actually caused the damaging information to be up there for a month. Maybe we should even have a seperate page detailing what exactly went wrong here. Deathawk 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. An anonymous editor wrote the bio including the offending phrase.
  2. It wasn't linked to from any other article, so never got noticed.
  3. He noticed it, and got the history deleted.
  4. The story ends.
It's really not that interesting in the scheme of things. -Splashtalk 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed this in the history page... no. of edits before controversy - around 10; no. of edits after controversy - close to 400! Just goes to show what such incidents can do to an article. Hmm... a new way to get some attention to less-noticed pages in wikipedia?? ;-)... Just joking... Jam2k 06:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Whining

Instead of publicly whining about the apparent errors in the section about him, why doesn't Mr. Seigenthaler simply correct the errors? Isn't that how Wikipedia is designed? Or maybe Mr. Seigenthaler is just looking for attention. Regardless, I will be very displeased if he's actions have any consequences on Wikipedia (the registering thing is fine, that's pretty standard these days) or any other internet material. Maybe someone should explain to him how the internet, and specifically Wikipedia, work...

Because editing the page would be too easy. He wanted to create a controversy. Mperry 00:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. -Splashtalk 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No not exactly, we are looking at a major failure on the part of Wikipedia and all its editors, dismissing it as starting it as a controversy is not true - perhaps Seigenthaler wanted to address a problem within the site, simply editting the page will not draw attention to fundamental errors on Wikipedia; creating national attention and perhaps, and incentive to do something better than what has been done, maybe will fix the problem, or atleast address it holistically (which to an extent, it has done). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on, this is just silly. The guy brought up a legitimate complaint. The article had incorrect information on it, for an extended period of time, several months before he found it. Editing it after the fact may solve that particular problem, but it doesn't address the broader problem of vandalism on stagnant pages in Wikipedia. I don't understand why people are taking cheap shots at him for raising the issue.--Eraboin 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is with how he raised the issue. Airing your gripe in a USA Today article and then going onto national news to complain about this reeks of trolling for personal or professional publicity. Mark my words. Several months from now he'll spin this into a book deal positioning himself as a self-appointed expert that's been on TV. I don't blame him for talking to Jimbo but that was far enough. For what it's worth, I do agree that Wikipedia has issues that need to be addressed. That's the fortunate silver lining to this incedent; We'll identify and fix them. However, I still feel that Mr. Seigenthaler could have taken a more responsible tact. Mperry 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Your words are marked. I don't think he's overreacting. I do believe there's hope, however, and that Wikipedia is not made illegitimate by this. I just don't see the point of sounding defensive about it.--Eraboin 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not fair. He only discovered the incorrect biography after it had already been online for 5 months. Answers.com and Reference.com had mirrors. He's hardly whining, if you watch the CNN interview you'll see he commends Jimbo and Wikipedia on the response he received once he had managed to contact him. Jacoplane 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Well. De facto, there is a hierarchy, isn't there? Why, suppose my cousin wrote an article about me. Why wouldn't you keep it? To those who are written about, do a favor and allow them their due.--VKokielov 06:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact remains that he could have spent 5 seconds removing the sentence. Instead, he stirred up a pseudo-storm. -Splashtalk 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. A child could tell you why he's doing what he's doing; the man was defamed and removing the sentence does not change that fact. Further, saying "well edit it yourself" defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia in general; if someone already knows about a subject, why are they looking it up? True, Seigenthaler knows about his own past, but if someone's using the encyclopedia for research purposes, are they really there for the purpose of editing? "Do it yourself" is a copout. How would you like it if you were served burned food at a restaurant and the response was "go back to the kitchen and cook it yourself," then? Just as you don't go to a restaurant to cook, people looking for information don't come here to write it themselves. I'm all for Wikipedia's concept, but you're using the features of the system as a shield. Face it; in this case the system failed, and no, it wasn't Mr. Seigenthaler's fault. Rogue 9 01:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not an adequate answer to the problem - we cannot expect every person on earth of any note to continually check Wikipedia to see if they have been libeled. More so, it is entirely inappropriate for any user (Wales included) to change the content of an article about themselves - it's just stupid - how can anyone ever be truly NPOV about themselves. If they have a point then raise it on a discussion page, but even if we are to ask this of the man, we can hardly expect Mr Seigenthaler to not be offended and to want to make a point about how badly Wikipedia has, on this case, policed itself when an article, for several months, goes towards accusing him of conspiring to murder his friend. Tompagenet 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wondering who wrote the original disputed article (restoral of comment)

Looking at the current article for clues to who his enemies might me. "... suspected...." Someone who briefly suspected him, and still remembers; someone in law enforcement? "...lived in Russia..." Someone who thinks living in Russia is a terrible thing? I hope he persists in finding the perp, and then loses the case. It would be pretty funny if the prep turned out to be the FBI. GangofOne 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 

Revision as of 13:34, 5 December 2005
Guanaco (Talk | contribs)
Wondering who wrote the original disputed article - remove section 
not relevant to the production of a good article

Please do not remove comments from the Talk pages. GangofOne 01:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No estoy de acuerdo

From what I wrote here


Wikipedia has been built by editors from all walks of life, and the key point of this encyclopedia is to allow everyone to edit. That is the problem to an extent ; unverified information (which is most likely false) can easily be distributed on Wikipedia and its mirror sites. A chain reaction of misinformation takes place such as the John Seigenthaler Sr. incident. Thus, anyone who researchs Wikipedia does so with grave risks. Also note that other Internet sites (such as Encarta) are much much more verifiable and valid than Wikipedia, although they do not have the same number of articles or the same amount of information. So no, I did not say or imply that internet sites are bad. Sorry, but Wikipedia is a bad source to add in a paper, so much, in fact, I have had several professors warning the class against its use. You are correct to say that no one should single source anything (as I stated earlier); but the key is, never source Wikipedia if you don't have to. All qualified and highly educated editors are severely outnumbered by spammers, vandals and trolls that swarm this site like bees. It is virtually impossible to create a holistically unbiased knowledge base. Even the qualified editors here amount to some of the problem involved here, as they are probably not professionals or experts about what they are writing (as I am not); they probably have emotional undertones in what they are writing; and Wikipedia itself and the community involved may be bestn assumed as bias, as original perspectives (such as a scientologist working with the Scientology article; or an African American writing an article for Afrocentrism) are often shunned and dismissed as NPOV or vandalism. Such leads only to ruin. Wikipedia for all the reasons stated, is simply not a reliable tool...be honest, if you had a critical essay to write, would you honestly rely on a one page article from Wikipedia, or a 500 page book from your local library, or, even Encarta? Most people agree, Wikipedia is simply not something to rely on wholely. Such could lead to ruin. Wikipedia's argument is that it improves everyday by the work of altruistic editors who take out portions of their lives to create a free knowledge base; however, the amount of sloppily written one sentence articles (e.g. that we all created when we were newbies) severely outnumber the better ones. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an entirely new page should be created to mention this event...the John Seigenthaler incident...? (In my personal pov - he totally overreacted). freestylefrappe 02:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Não, there would be too many dissenters. : ( εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
While an article chroniciling this event John Siegenthaler event might be worth discussing i don't beieve this endeavor is without merit as i think some people are trying to suggest. Briaboru
The article has been put up already at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It's being discussed for deletion though.... Jam2k 06:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The AFD is over; the consensus was to keep. --EngineerScotty 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work Jimmy

Good lord. Mr. John Seigenthaler Sr., if you believe in the 1st amendment, then act like it. The system worked exactly how it is supposed to work. Mr. Seigenthaler was unwilling to make the changes himself (though hence forth it is his responsibility), and Jimmy fixed it.

Case closed.

Yet another win for the first amendment.

Haven't I already explained once why this line of argument utterly fails? Rogue 9 03:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As a lawyer, I can tell you that you severely misunderstand what the First Amendment means. Or maybe you are referring to the mystical "Internet" First Amendment.

I can't believe this...

One bad apple spoils the barrel, it seems. I hope that anonymous IP is happy, because (s)he has most likely damaged Wikipedia's reputation for a very long time. However, that won't stop me from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia.

Mr. Seigenthaler, on behalf of this community, I'd like to offer you my own apology for this incident. I have no idea why such people would have the nerve to libel you like that, and it hurts me to the core. --  Denelson83  04:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have no idea why such people would have the nerve to libel you like that." Please read the article; the man has enemies, and honorably so. GangofOne 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
There are many more than one bad apple here.
I hope this makes us (Wikipedians) sit up and take notice. I read at

[1] that now you will have to register before you can create an article. But registering takes only 15-20 seconds, and even then there is no verification of the person registering. The change needs to be extended:

  • 1. only registered users can edit
  • 2. some verification of the user
There is only one problem with the "anyone can edit" policy, and that is that anyone can edit.


We should not be editing page histories like this

Because that is extremely broken, in so many different ways. We'll gladly watch the page against vandalism, but we seriously can't keep deleting whatever from page history. Even if it WAS practical Kim Bruning 06:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the ceremony. He asks to remove the page history -- remove it. Because he's bigger, first; and because he isn't wrong, second. No one need be the martyr. --VKokielov 06:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kim Bruning. What history cleaning is next? George W. Bush? He's sure powerful enough to force the Foundation's hand if some journalist is. -Splashtalk 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Article in The Register

Take a look at this article published in The Register that was published today - Who owns your Wikipedia Bio?... It really hurts you, if you are a fan of Wikipedia and it's policies... All this just because some anonymous idiot vandalized a page that wasn't even noticed till a week ago...

Don't get me wrong people. It's just that I'm sooo irritated to see our community being accused like this. These people don't even appreciate the hard work we put in, and use some one or two incidents to defame the entire lot of users... Jam2k 07:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't take this too hard. The Register has always been extremely derisive of Wikipedia. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 08:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed something very funny today... Though The Register seems to be criticizing wikipedia like this, it itself seems to link to wikipedia for a few terms... talk about irony!Jam2k 08:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Two thoughts

For one thing, I think this whole "controversy" is being blown wildly out of proportion. Of course, there are some people who just can't stand the principles behind Wikipedia, so they latch on to whatever they can to criticize it. They just do not have any faith in the ability of ordinary people working together to produce something great like this. It's pure contempt. This business of scrambling to defend Wikipedia, as if we've got to save our skins, isn't doing us any good, either. There's a system here. To an overwhelming degree, it works, and it has produced this magnificent resource, but of course it also has a few inherent flaws. One of them is highlighted by this incident. But we should shrug it off—we are improving things every day, making things more researched and verifiable, and this article itself is actually benefiting from the attention it's getting. My idea is, why not set a goal to make this a featured article? Make it a shining example of Wikipedia research and neutrality. That's taking lemons and making lemonade. Everyking 08:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexa:Wikipedia hits traffic record again

Wikipedia hits #30

Lotsofissues 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice to see... with all this recent publicity that we got, it's bound to rise :-). Too bad the other language sites don't get much attention (English version is visited 63% of the time)... Jam2k 08:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the controversy merit it's own article?

I think it probably does, especially as it seems to have led to a rule change on the Wiki. I also think the press coverage (apoplectic NYTimes, etc.) deserves a bit more space.

The article is already there, 82.152.179.2. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Discuss the merit of a seperate article for the whole issue in it's Afd page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy
The article has cleared the AFD (the result was overwhelming keep). Perhaps much of the content on this page concerning the controversy should be moved there, so that this article can be on Seigenthaler, and not on the controversy (which is a very small part of his public life)? --EngineerScotty 23:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What it tells us

I see that there is a sentence at the bottom suggesting that this incident (him raising hell -no judgement implied- rather than editing the sentence) tells us about the gap between traditional media and the new wiki-world. Does it not also tell us something about the prominence and trustworthiness of wiki in people's eyes, that he thought it so terrible? If someone had written this, or anything unpleasant or untrue about him on a random page, nobody would pay attention. That it was considered serious shows that wiki is being considered in the realm of the traditional media and encyclopedias. Even as they attack us, they praise us. 15:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

Respectfully submitted for the eyes of Mr. James Wales (You are not in a position to ever again be known as Jimmy)

December 6, 2005 (a day that shall live ingenius innovation)


Dear Mr. Wales,

I propose that every high school teacher in the world be presented the following option by the board of trustees or directors at their schools who manage such things:

An opportunity now exists for every student, from the age of 15 until their graduation to earn an extra credit "A" each school year.

This opportunity will result in either the "A" or nothing.

Each sponsoring teacher must expend significant time and energy to provide this opportunity, and must therefore be very committed.

The offer is limited to three extra credit "A's" per school year, per teacher. The teacher selects the students and the subject matter.

The opportunity - if you have not already guessed - is:

(1.) Read and learn the standards that were developed and applied for the production of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Or perhaps the Columbia. Or perhaps another, more suitable standard. The student must study and learn the guidelines and research principles that are applied to articles by these standard-bearing institutions. And they must demonstrate a firm grasp of the rules.

(2.) The student must then apply these principles to produce a Wikipedia article. Strictly following the aforementioned standards, each student must perform and document their research. They must publish a complete and accurate set of citations and source references. They must write a back story that explains exactly how the information was gathered, and from where. They must write a series of drafts which the teacher must review and help to shape. Finally, the student must make an appointment with the teacher to work together, off site, and off hours, to either write anew, or re-write a Wikipedia article. The final article must include all of the research documentation, and both teacher and student must affix their name to the article.

With all due respect,

David Lance david.lance@verizon.net

P.S. By the way, please add a spellcheck.

P.P.S. With an appreciative nod to the Memex of Vannevar Bush.


Dear Dave, your message would be better placed at User Talk:Jimbo Wales. The Land 19:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
As nice as spell checking would be, it takes a relatively large amount of computing power. Wikipedia would probably need a dedicated server in order to handle the load, along with fairly complete dictionaries in every language. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Google's gmail.com provides a surprisingly quick and efficient spell checker. I wonder what type of load it places on their servers. Hall Monitor 22:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
And I think that's probably the same as the normal spell checking they do on search queries... from what I've heard, it uses a bunch of heuristics based on how often words appear in web pages. Google has enough resources that its server farms can handle most anything, and they have various types of servers dedicated to particular tasks, including spellchecking servers.
The main problem is that spell checking one word is basically a O(m²n) operation, where m is the average word length and n is the dictionary size, and that's if you just want to check Levenshtein distances. Plain soundex matching would be somewhat faster, but much less accurate. Ideally, morphology analysis would be involved too, which I suspect Google's recent stemming addition is derived from. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 23:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is the anonymous biographer?

In his USA Today article, Mr. Siegenthaler disclosed the IP of the anonymous biographer as "65-81-97-208" which corresponds to: 

     adsl-065-081-097-208.sip.bna.bellsouth.net

If you go to that address with a web browser, you get this result: "Welcome to Rush Delivery"

If you look up "Rush Delivery" as a local business in Nashville, it matches exactly one commercial enterprise: 

 Rush Delivery
 1877 Elm Tree Dr
 Nashville, TN 37210
 (615) 874-2222

Perhaps someone at Rush Delivery can confirm or deny that they are the Bellsouth customer with assigned IP address 65.81.97.208.

--SlowGeekInNewEngland

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Seigenthaler/Archive_3&oldid=1136851646"