Talk:Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikipedia:Stable versions

Wikipedia articles should always be considered developmental versions as opposed to Wikipedia:Stable versions. -- Zondor 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

USA Today

Seigenthaler's comments, particularly his USA Today op-ed, have been controversial. When USA Today later published a number of personal letters [1] responding to the op-ed, some accused Seigenthaler of unnecessarily attacking an "entire community based solely on the misconduct of a single member." Others commended Siegenthaler for exposing what they considered a "deeply flawed" system of unedited publication.

Where do these quotes come from? I can't find either comment on the USA Today letters page.

chocolateboy 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've snipped the following paragraph, as it contains quotes that are patently not in the letters page it purports to cite:

Seigenthaler's comments, particularly his USA Today op-ed, have been controversial. When USA Today later published a number of personal letters [2] responding to the op-ed, some accused Seigenthaler of unnecessarily attacking an "entire community based solely on the misconduct of a single member." Others have attacked Seigenthaler's perceived ignorance of Wikipedia's processes, citing his concerns over the potential vandalism of congressional nominees' biographies, and contending that such serious inaccuracies would be removed much more quickly if they appeared in a more prominent article, or one with more contemporary relevance. Others commended Seigenthaler for exposing what they considered a "deeply flawed" system of unedited publication.

chocolateboy 05:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Solution: link number of editors to 'reliability guage'?

Wikipedia isn't gossip - the article was gossip. To continue Seigenthaler's analogy, Wikipedia itself is speech. You wouldn't base your judgement, if you have any sense, on something you were told on the bus this morning by another passenger, at least not without checking it up first. But you would do well to form an opinion from a room full of experts discussing the same, factual topic.

It seems to me that the problem here is that Wikipedia doesn't give browsers a clear way to tell the difference between articles written by the guy on the bus and articles written by the panel of experts. The History tab just isn't something a non-editing user is likely to click on, and even if they did long histories would be confusing.

I think a good long-term solution to the problems Seigenthaler raises is some form of easily readable 'reliability gauge', call it what you will, on each article. Articles with non-minor edits from large numbers of registered users would have higher ratings (e.g. three stars), and articles edited by only one or two people, like Seigenthaler's, would have very low ratings (one or no stars) and an appropriate warning.

A few problems with this idea off the top of my head:

• The system can be abused to actively give an article a higher reputability.
• Vandalism will artificially bump up the user count, as will reverts and minor edits not properly marked as such.
  • In other words, it relies heavily on user responsibility.

Any thoughts? --Tom Edwards 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia doesn't give browsers a clear way to tell the difference between articles written by the guy on the bus and articles written by the panel of experts.

Yes it does. They're called references. Note the distinct absence of "guy on a bus" aroma from featured articles such as W. Mark Felt.

As for your "solution": as you point out, the articles with the highest number of edits from registered users are likely to be the ones with the highest incidence of vandalism e.g. United States, Wikipedia, George W. Bush &c. i.e. most of the edits by registered users are reverts, which says very little about the reliability or provenance of the article. We have specific provisions for that: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources &c.

Either way, why discuss this here rather than on Wikipedia:Village pump or the mailing list?

chocolateboy 21:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I've edited Wikipedia from a bus before. Don't knock it. More germanely, there are some pretty good contributions from people who pop in, add a couple things from sources most editors don't read, and never come back again. Density of editors is not an indicator of quality -- as with any other source, users of Wikipedia should apply their critical thinking skills when considering content. Same goes for CNN, or any school textbook. Both of which have much less transparency in their editorial process than Wikipedia. -- Adrian 22:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that more editors automatically means increased quality, but that there being a large number of people active on the page means things as obviously false as Seigenthaler's biography would be removed quickly, certainly more quickly than actually happened. 'Not bad' as opposed to 'good', to generalise. ;-)

We have specific provisions for that: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Which are all very well, but how often are they actually followed? It isn't good enough simply to have guidelines: they have to be put into practice too, as this article shows. The general idea behind this suggestion is simply an attempt to automatically 'rate' an article in some way. No computer rating system will ever be perfect, and it would ideally be unecessary, but it would at least be carried out reliably and help prevent future tussles like this one. --Tom Edwards 00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Change in Wikipedia policy

Some of the articles state that, as a result of this controversy, Wikipedia has changed its policy to allow new articles to be created only by logged-in users with accounts. Is this correct? If so, why is it not mentioned in the article? Badagnani 09:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) the policy change had been brewing for some while (I find traces of it in August, on the Village Pump I believe, although I can't remember), it seems merely to have been useful public relations to time it in response to this; (2) the policy change affects only new articles (and not even in all namespaces, Talk being excluded for sure, maybe others) and wouldn't have made a whit of difference in this case, which involved edits to an existing article. In order to prevent further, more serious, libels -- Mr. Seigenthaler has been a pretty good sport about this, but the next guy might not be -- what is needed is to require traceable registration for all edits, just like 90% of the other bulletin boards and things out there. Bill 12:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article in the "reaction" section. The matter had been discussed in august, and often before -- it is first on the Perrennial Proposals section of the village pump, but the overwhelming consensus, in my view, right up until mid Nov, was "intersting idea, might have some benefits, will never happen". I might add that I oppose the change, and would prefer to return to the status quo. But if we do require regiustration for all edits, it should indeed be a tracable registration, or there is no point to the exercise, IMO. I would add that if we do this, the new pages and recent changes lists ought to show a column for number of contributuions, or some similar statistic, to restore the feature that IP contributions got extra scrutiny from patrollers. DES ^(talk) 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't buy it.

The so-called "explanation" and "apology" for the controversy by Chase seems suspect to me for a variety of reasons:

• If you were going to play a joke on a co-worker, why do it on a website where he was unlikely to visit?
• It seems highly unlikely and coincidental that his co-worker's name just happened to be "John Seigenthaler, Sr." and that he mentions the Kennedy assassinations in the fake article, when the real Seigenthaler worked with the Kennedys...
• It also seems very odd that both Chase and Seigenthaler have ties to Nashville ... too much of a coincidence.

I think Chase really wanted to slam Seigenthaler for some reason, and now he's admitting that he did it, but he lacks the courage of his convictions to say why, and instead made up some bogus false reason. Given that he's published libelous material, the possibility of him lying about this whole thing seems much more likely than his excuse of "I was just punking a co-worker." Ashton Kutcher, he ain't. --Gothhenge 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Luckily, it's no business of ours to start sherlocking the facts out of him. Yes, he's probably being dishonest about the whole thing but really, wouldn't anyone, being caught with their pants down and made a national-level laughing stock? --Agamemnon2 10:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

I understand that the problematical page was up for over 4 months. Now was there reference to his alleged role in the assassinations anywhere else in wikipedia (John F. Kennedy assassination or anything)? And can anyone tell me how many links there were to this article at the time (there are hundreds now it seems, the vast majority, as far as I can tell, a result of the controversy)? -R. fiend 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that there were few if any links to the article while it had the false statements in it, but I don't know how to verify that -- you cant run "what links here" on an old version as far as i know. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the 4 months, by the way, the myth is that on average vandalism is reverted in 5 minutes. This probably isn't true; it approaches true only for the "big" articles like Jesus. The smaller articles, less often read, keep their errors for a much longer time. (A reflection which ought to humble Mr. S, be said in passing...!) Right this minute, I'm watching an article that was vandalized an hour ago, see when it gets corrected. My odds for that particular one: in a day or two; but we'll see. Bill 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: that article, not really a minor one, either, is still unreverted, one and a half days later. Saw an even more prominent article, on a very important person in Antiquity, totally blanked just under an hour ago, still no fix. Bill 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The more important article, Ptolemy, finally reverted just now: 3h12m. Bill 18:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Further update on the other article: still unreverted after 9 days. The article covers a region in Europe approximately equivalent in importance to the State of Colorado in the US. Bill 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Continued update: going on 2-1/2 months, and the article has been edited 9 times since the vandalism. Bill 22:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Now 3 months and despite 14 edits. (And it is quite pointless writing me asking me to revert it. Not only will I not do it, but I urge serious editors to go on strike and cease reverting all vandalism: see my page.) Bill 20:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was finally caught today. (The article was Marche, and see the Talk there.) Bill 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen vandalism on a pretty major page go unnoticed for weeks. But that's generally rare for major pages. To anyone who knows anything about wikipedia, Seigenthaler's assertion that what happened to him will likely happen to Hilary Clinton and Tom Delay as the election approaches is ridiculous. Yes, they will be vandalized, but those will be reverted in minutes. He obviously hasn't seen what happened with the Bush and Kerry articles in the last election. -R. fiend 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And that's vandalism.

Obvious vandalism on a page that's on someone's watchlist will usually get caught within however often that person checks his watchlist.

The most insidious problem is someone putting in casual, off-the-cuff misinformation based on something they are pretty sure they once read. Such misinformation usually sounds plausible. It can escape notice for a very long time, particularly if it is well written.

Another problem is that if a vandalism edit does not get caught before another edit is made, it can escape notice, especially if the next edit is a good one with a good edit comment, because then the edit command and the diff on the watchlist both look good. An entire section of Wikipedia:Your first article, the one which explains what's meant by a "vanity page," was removed and its removal went unnoticed for over a week.

Wikipedia has no systematic process for checking anything. There's an important difference between an encyclopedia and open source software, which is that problems in software are likely to manifest as bugs in the software's operation. (Actually an interesting question is: if someone were to vandalize a random line in an open source product, how long would it take for it to be reverted?) To some extent, building an running a software project does some kind of overall check on the entire content. There's no comparable way to "build" and "SQA" Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And if a new page sticks around long enough to fall off the end of the "Newpages" facility, it may escape notice.

The Seigenthaler article is an almost perfect example of the problem. If it had been full of adolescent-male-style verbiage and bad spelling, it might well have been caught early on. But it was just subtle enough that catching it required:

• Reading the article
• Paying attention to what the article actually said
• Noticing that the article said something quite negative about Seigenthaler
• Noticing that no sources were given
• Wondering whether it was true
• Taking action.

Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The initial article should have been speedied minutes after it was created. For about eight months it simply said "John Seigenthaler SR". If Chase had had to create the article from scratch his edits likely would have faced more scrutiny, and this may have been avoided. -R. fiend 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One month and five days and counting, that page I'm watching still not reverted. By now very likely a hundred people have read the intentionally introduced error, and either taken it as fact, or come away with the impression that Wikipedia is not to be taken seriously. Bill 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is long enough to prove the point that some mistakes in Wikipedia will persist for a long time. I don't think it is a good idea to allow the mistake to continue one. Whether it gets reverted tomorrow, or if it takes 3 more months, the point has been proven. In the meantime, as you say, hundreds of people are either leaning an incorrect fact or getting a bad impression of us. I urge you to take action now and fix the problem. Johntex\^talk 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Referenced Material

What Mr. Seigenthaler says should be carefully considered. It is not funny when your good name gets muddied falsely. It is also easy to think that when that happens to you, everyone (in this case Wikipedians) has bad intentions. As far as reverting this sort of thing, it is very difficult to know what the truth is, if you don't know the facts. However, if it is unreferenced, it could be unreliable. This is the key!

Personally, I think that if any statement is made in an article, and it is negative, and it is unreferenced, it should be removed "sofort". The main reason is that it causes great hurt to the person to whom these statements are being directed. It is just not fair. I also do not like any sort of character assassination, and have had a few disagreements with other editors about this in the past.

Can we not say more good things about people, and less bad? It makes for a much more pleasant read, and makes the world a better place. Wallie 13:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Moral responsibility

"There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'", The Register (UK)

Isn't that libel? ilya 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That statement obviously doesn't mean that Wikipedia literally lacks an entry titled "moral responsibility". It's like pointing to a tough athlete and saying "defeat isn't even in his vocabulary"--it's just a figure of speech. Ken Arromdee 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it means "Wikipedia lacks moral responsibility" or something like that in a very clear way. So, I agree, it's not about wrong fact. Instead it's about consciously defamating, imho. ilya 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Some examples from there:

• For now, however, it's the chasm between Wikipedia's rude claim to be an "encyclopedia", and the banal reality of trashy, badly written trivia that causes so many people to be upset about it.
• Wikipedia is a project whose failure is genetically programmed into its mechanisms, and "publication" is one of those things that will trigger the final, fatal sequence of destruction.
• Now a picture of the body behind the "Hive Mind" of "collective intelligence" begins to take shape. He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb. Watch out.

Now, I take that personally, because this clearly implies that (1) my articles are trashy and badly written (2) The mechanism of website I work with has an inherently failure (3) I am (or have intellect of?) a boy 14 age old, with acne and lots of problems. Wow. And the factual error in the title.

Any lawyers? ilya 07:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I start suspecting this is the tabloid not worth bothering about ilya 08:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am forced to agree with claims #1 and #2, but even I want to have nothing at all to do with #3. --Agamemnon2 10:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I resent that, for all of your reasons and more. What if there are perfectly reasonably minded 14 year olds out there who happen to be 14, have acne, has an encyclopedia to which he makes perfectly reasonable requests and statements under all wikipedia policies, and occasioally might write his own short articles. Put in that light, and it suddenly appears not only to be wrong but to also be stereotypical of this particular 14 year old. And has the author of this news article even looked at the rest of the encyclopedia? Well written, factual but easy to understand articles with some articles that are very rarely written without factual backing. Hmm, I wonder who has created the greater error here, Wikipedia or the Newspaper;). --The1exile 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC) ---

this clearly implies that... my articles are trashy and badly written

Your articles? chocolateboy 11:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, rephrase that to be "articles to which I have contributed" and the statement become correct. But this is spitting hairs really, at least in this case.

--The1exile 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Under U.S. law, expressions of opinion aren't actionable as defamation. Suppose someone dispenses with the implications and says expressly, "User:JamesMLane has created several Wikipedia articles. All of them are trashy and badly written. They demonstrate that their author has no sense of moral responsibility." I have no cause of action. The first sentence relates to a matter of fact, but it's true; the second and third sentences are opinion. Thus, a more accurate version of the note at the bottom of an edit page would be: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others or criticized unfairly by miscellaneous hooligans, know-nothings, and publicity hounds, do not submit it." JamesMLane 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune article

The Chicago Tribune is now covering the controversy, in its 15 December 2005 edition. It's a two page article, registration is likely required (mine is saved as a cookie, so I couldn't tell you for sure). http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512150209dec15,1,7151266.column?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed --JohnDBuell 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That's a pretty good article, really. It makes clear the inherent problems with wikipedia without bashing it. It also makes the basic point that I've always made about the project: when it's good, it's very very good, and when it's bad it's horrid. The biggest problem, as far as I can tell, is that wikipedia has bitten off more than it can chew, and this will continue to worsen as editors strive to have articles an anything and everything that there is some sort of potentially somewhat-verifiable information on. He also makes some pretty good points about accountability. The only change that came about as a result (or coincidentally contemporarily) was pretty minor, and is likely only to decrease the amount of "Jason is a retard" entries that we get, which are bad, but are deleted quickly anyway, and, never being searched for, are hardly ever seen. I wonder if more change will come.-R. fiend 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And another BBC News article

This one makes Wikipedia sound quite a bit better :) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm --JohnDBuell 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We can't have it both ways. If we're going to preen ourselves on being "about as accurate as Britannica," then we need to be ashamed about the Seigenthaler incident.

Do you think the Britannica has any articles that falsely state that a person, still alive, was "was thought to have been directly involved" in two assassinations? I don't. Their fact-checking may not be perfect but I don't believe anything like that would have slipped by. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing to be ashamed of. "About as accurate as Britannica" doesn't mean "exactly as accurate as Britannica". No one expected Wikipedia to be 100% accurate in 2001, or 2 years ago, why now? I'm sure minor errors abound, but it is still a damn good reference for the general users. I myself will not stop loving and using it just because someone tells me "it can't be taken seriously". The history of Wikipedia proved the idea of Wikipedia worked. This doesn't change just because a self-important old guy made a mountain out of a mole hill. This is not the beginning of the end. Wilsonbond 20:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NY Times

Isn't it great that Wikipedia publishes the negative 'reaction' to the Seigenthaler 'controversy'. Has anyone else thought that it is strange that "In reaction to the controversy, New York Times business editor Larry Ingrassia sent out a memo to his entire staff commenting on the reliability of Wikipedia and writing, "We shouldn't be using it to check any information that goes into the newspaper."....considering they used the US government to verify the information about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. What a farce of a newspaper. I know my comment is of no use to Wikipedia but at least it might please a couple of users....I suppose I'm trying to say that what the New York Times does is of no revelance, they really have a vested interest (I mean they want to create more controversy, get more readers). There really isn't a difference between Wikipedia and any other source of information (like the media), occasionally they all publish erroneous information. Perhaps that should be mentioned. --Constan69 13:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Was the Statement by Brian Chase true?

Here is part of what Brian Chase wrote:

"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."

Now, it is a fact that John Seigenthaler Sr. was the Assistant Attorney General under President John F. Kennedy. It is also a fact that just about everybody of significance in the entire world has been at one time or another accused of involvement in the Kennedy Assassination. Therefore, it might be true that somebody, somewhere said that John Seigenthaler Sr. was involved. Brian Chase covers himself by stating "For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved". I suspect that he can provide some source, however unreliable, for this assertion.

Next, John Seigenthaler Sr. says that although this had been posted for four months, he did not know about it. I doubt that this is true. Pop the name John Seigenthaler Sr. into any search engine, and the Wikipedia biography will come out on top. So, he probably did know about it.

Thirdly, rather than simply delete the false statements in the article, as he easily could have done, he wrote to the founder of Wikipedia demanding that the entire article be deleted. Since John Seigenthaler Sr. clearly is a public figure, this demand was refused for a time, and properly so.

Finally, John Seigenthaler Sr. chose to write an article about it in USA today. So, it is clear that he chose to publicize the incident rather than quitely remove it. I know that I had never heard of John Seigenthaler Sr. prior to this incident and I doubt that many other readers had. He has become famous or at least more famous, because of this controversy.

I think that this raises questions which ought to be addressed. Sam Sloan 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all the statement "just about everybody of significance in the entire world has been at one time or another accused of involvement in the Kennedy Assassination" is untrue, even in the hyperbolic form you presented it. And anything calling itself an encyclopedia must take only credible accusations into account. Not some sort of "I overheard some drunk talking about this". Also, I doubt he did know about it. Wikipedia is the #1 google hit for his name now, but I don't know how long that's been the case. Nor do I suspect he is the sort of guy who googles himself regularly. And to tell the truth, I don't really blame him for making a bit of a stink about the matter. Changing the article would have been a short term fix, but it would have done nothing to address underlying problems wikipedia is contantly facing. It would not have gotten the attention of anyone who read the libelous version and took it as fact. Wikipedia screwed up pretty big here, and I don't think Seigenthaler is to blame. The only thing I criticize him for is his statements that this could happen to people like Hilary Clinton. He is obviously pretty ignorant of how wikipedia works in this regard. He seems unaware at how much those sort of pages are vandalized, and how quickly that vandalism in reverted. 4 minutes is more common than 4 months. -R. fiend 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have to be very careful to only use sourced material. I find it much more feasible that Seigerthaler wrote in USA today in order to generate self-publicity (fame=money) than that he was actually involved in the Kennedy assassination. What is certain is that wikipedia has massive publicity in the UK since, and probably in a lot of other countries, so both he and Chase have done wikipedia a massive favour. We are better known by more. Wikipedia could have spent millions in advertising without getting such a result, SqueakBox 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that's an overly optimistic view of the situation. The idea that "there's no such thig as bad publicity" doesn't really apply to projects like who rely on their reputation for accuracy. If 100,000 people are introduced to wikipedia under the headline "wikiepdia is unreliable" how many are even going to give it a chance? Probably the most new contributors will be people who are inspired by Chase to try simialr things themselves. There is already engough vandalism here without that. If Wikipedia wre a movie opening this weekend, rather than an encyclopedia, you'd have a good point. But did you notice the fund drive at the top of the screen? Do you think this is going to help that? I think the timing is awful, and I would have been in favor of putting off the fund drive until some of the fuss dies down. -R. fiend 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Aah no, I block out messages like that so I wasn't aware of the fundraising. But fortunately not all the publicity (in the UK) has been negative. This for instance, was a fantastic write up. We got, IMO, far better publicity for equalling Britannica in the Nature test than would have otherwise been the case, and though I have only been following the UK press on the case generally wikipedia has come out of this well, SqueakBox 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that's a good little write up, but so general and lacking in detail or explanation that it's hardly one for the refigerator door. It also reads lie somethign written for a High school newspaper, really. The positive comparison to Britannica in Nature was definitely a good thing for the project, but it seems that has been somewhat lost in a sea of criticisms. And, keep in mind, that one was only about science articles. I'd be curious to see how they compare in other fields (we have them beat in fancruft, I know). -R. fiend 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea that he could have deleted the statement himself is questionable. As I pointed out above, Wikipedia:Autobiography is commonly interpreted to mean that people can't fix mistakes in articles about themselves. Also, if changing the article is an acceptable fix, he'd have to keep tabs on the article for the rest of his life to make sure that nobody changes it back. Ken Arromdee 18:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience Wikipedia:Autobiography isn't taken that seriously. I've seen articles kept at AFD as "verifiable" when the contriubtor and title had the same name, which is pretty obvious autobiography. Plus he could have removed the offending passages anonymously. If he used the summary "removed unsubstanitated claims" I doubt anyone would have reverted him. But true, he would have to keep tabs on the article. At least he can rest assured that article has enough tabs being kept on it now. -R. fiend 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

An honest user, who is told he can't fix errors about himself, would not even consider doing so anonymously. He'd assume that if he isn't allowed to do it, trying to do it anonymously so he wouldn't get caught is cheating. It's a bad idea to have a policy which causes more problems for honest users than dishonest ones.

If users may edit articles about themselves, we need to get rid of the guideline that says they can't. And likewise, the fact that we can't get rid of the guideline means that many Wikipedians *don't* think users should edit articles about themselves.

At least, it should be changed so that a user may not create articles about themselves (avoiding the problem of non-notable people using Wikipedia for self-promotion), but may edit them. Ken Arromdee 16:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

From looking at Wikipedia:Autobiography, it seems to me that it is considered a faux pas to write about oneself, and is "strongly discouraged", but allowed. Makes sense; it happens all the time. Certainly no one would it against a user if they removed a personal attack from an article about themselves, or reverted simple vandalism. -R. fiend 16:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with both proposals. But here is not the place to make them. Perhaps at the policy section of the village pump, but let this page know if you do propose it elsewhere. I don't know much about changing policy but I am sure there is a procedure, and would support this one, SqueakBox 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My point was not that Wikipedia:Autobiography should be fixed or deleted (though I certainly think it should). Rather, my point was that the article's existence shows that the idea has support.

If it was really true that "no one would hold it against a user if they removed a personal attack from an article about themselves", then we'd have been able to get rid of (or modify) the article. The reason we can't get rid of the article is that there *are* people who would hold such a thing against the user, and those people want the article to stay. Ken Arromdee 05:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody explain to me why the media has deemed this such a big deal

It was just your average, petty vandalism, the only difference was that it went unchecked somehow. It happens all the time. I just don't get why Seigenthaler or anybody else is going nuts over it. --64.9.10.166 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To the insider used to editing Wikipedia, yes. To any person coming to get info,

• it's libel, and of a particular nasty kind, to accuse someone falsely of conspiracy to murder
• it underscores two facts: the Internet is a poor source of information; just because something calls itself an encyclopedia, it is not.

Bill 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Seigenthaler contretemps is a wake-up call. We'd better find a way to make it stop "happening all the time." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

there also is the issue of reputation, i know there are those would equate worrying about one's reputation as having an ego but the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. so there is the hurtful aspect to it, and that kind of info might cause some people to think something about the other that wouldn't be so. Not that i'm telling alot of people what they don't already know Briaboru 23:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Common courtesy?

Being rather new to Wikipedia, I feel reluctant to intervene in this extensive discussion, but I have nowhere seen a suggestion that any living subject of a biography should, as a matter of common courtesy, be notified of its existence, if not before then immediately after it's first posted.

Thereafter, there's nothing to prevent them from keeping track of changes by using some such service as http://www.watchthatpage.com/, which I personally find very useful. It would be even better if they could, if they requested it, be notified of changes by email, if that's not considered too great a burden. MikeSy 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes but how do you achieve that immensely complex task? and who is responsible for doing so? You could argue that trying to find contact details for people in wikipedia articles is much more of an invasion of privacy. Many of the people who have articles live outside the US, and some come from countries from which wikipedia may not have editors, and many article subjects don't speak English. Trying to contact the famous subjects would itself be a huge challenge. So this is not a practical proposition, especially as wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. I would personally argue that it is the responsibility of any individual to monitor where they are appearing on the internet, SqueakBox 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I confess to still being rather naïve regarding the rate at which autobiographies of living persons are added, but I have seen that the criteria for inclusion use the word 'notable'. Nor do I know much about who might be editing an entry. I am however confident that subjects are consulted for at least some publications such as Who's Who, if not for Britannica. And I acknowledge that the difficulty of contacting Osama bin Laden might be considerable. Which was why I said 'Common courtesy'. Moreover, many subjects are likely to have press agencies looking out for them (come to think of it, that might well be the case in the present instance). But the fact remains that not everyone is yet internet connected, and of those that are, there are still many who are not Wikipedia-aware. For example, I have been using email since one had to route messages through gateways, and Wikipedia came to my notice only a few months ago. Subsequently, I was surprised to see a (stub)biography for a friend and colleague, also a long standing internet user, who had been unaware of its existence until someone else has pointed it out to him. It therefore remains my opinion that ensuring the subject is aware should be regarded as a matter of common courtesy - no more, but no less. MikeSy 16:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some publications notify subjects and ask for comment. Othes do not do so routinely. Given the wide range of people who ahve biographical articles about them on wikipedia, this would not be practical. If an individual editor choses to make such notifications, s/he is free to do so. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To notify everyone who has an autobiography written is impractical and who would do it anyway? It is better to ensure as much as possible that everything is accurate, and referenced with a RELIABLE REFERENCE. I do not believe that Wikipedia is anywhere near this stage yet. If anyone feels their autobiography is wrong however, she/he should complain to Wikipedia officials, who will hopefully treat the matter VERY SERIOUSLY. Each such complaint should also shore up the process so that the encyclopedia is subject to continuous improvement. Wallie 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Request: a timeline of the events

I've not tracked this as well as many of the other editors. I believe a timeline that starts with the day that the hoax was first entered and ends with the day it was written up in the New York Times would be great help in understanding what happened. patsw 20:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Request: a summary of inaccuracies in media accounts

I have another request for an editor familiar with the facts and the media coverage. For each article or online account where there is a significant error, ommission, or distortion, could the media covergage be identified and the problem explained in the controversy article here.

I believe that people might pick up A little sleuthing unmasks writer of Wikipedia prank [3] and see that the New York Times has not published a correction. and assume that it was free of significant errors )and perhaps it was). patsw 01:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"As a result, the unredacted versions of the article can be viewed only by Wikipedia administrators."

While this is true, it is a little misleading in the sense that the problematical text itself can, of course be viewed by anyone right here in this article, where it is quoted. I raised this point above and was shot down, but I still feel that this article has a certain subtle flavor of "So-and-so bays at the moon..." "I DO NOT! TAKE IT BACK!" "Hey, everyone, so-and-so does NOT bay at the moon!"

Just venting. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging Brian Chase with this article

The article on Brian Chase contains nothing but information that is already listed in this article. Brian Chase is not notable for any reason other than this controversy. I would like to merge the Brian Chase article with this one and then redirect Brian Chase here. Agree, disagree? Kaldari 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly sensible. But good luck making it happen. For some bizarre reason, people have been screaming about censorship when this gets merged. There's some discussion on Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) about it. Apparently people have very strong feelings. The last time I merged this (a few days ago) I was warned about "vandalism" on my talk page. Friday (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is now a revert war going on with people weanting Brian Chase to be a redirect. it certainly should come here if it is not going to be there, though I for one believe it should remain there, SqueakBox 22:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I still can't say I understand your reasoning on why not to merge it. I understand that he's "notable". But the "notable" thing he did was cause the controversy, which we already have an article about. We have nothing on him except his role in the controversy, which to me means we need one article, not two. What we've got now is redundant. Friday (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't you get it? By having this information in one place instead of two, and having it more succinctly stated and complete, with a clear redirect, you are censoring everyone who contributes to wikipedia and stifling the flow of information, making you, well, nothing better than a common Nazi. There I said it. -R. fiend 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Friday, my answer is because that was the consensus to keep the article in Chase's Afd, SqueakBox 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was IMO more of a "no consensus" than anything, but I don't see that this matters. The article is not being deleted. I was hoping for a reason related to content and making a good encyclopedia, not a reason related to a certain interpretation of the rules. Since I still have yet to hear any valid reason why Chase is better off in his own article, I'll try the redirect again. Friday (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's merge Brian Chase into the controversy page. If stirring this up is his only claim to fame, he doesn't need a bio article. Iamvered 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to all Wikipedia users

Insert {{unsourced}} and, if needed, {{not verified}} tags to any articles that do not cite sources. Shawnc 23:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So you would regulate all the stubs which do not have sources? It is a good idea, but it is not practical. --The1exile 12:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Some citation must be provided for each article if Wikipedia is to become reputable or at least more reliable. Without sources, this project is arguably but a rumor mill or POV depository. Shawnc 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

One can also use {{fact}} after any unsourced statements. Shawnc 14:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hillsdale Daily News prank

Interesting paralells with this controversy:

"The Hillsdale Daily News retracts a bogus item published in its Saturday, Dec. 17, News of Record. The item listed two men from Waldron as having obtained a marriage license from Hillsdale County. The information was fabricated and inserted as a prank into the news computer system by a member of the Daily News staff, who has been fired. The staff member said he did not intend for the prank to be published and apologized to the two men." [4] Wonder how often this happens annually? Jokestress 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

For anyone interested, there is a vote at Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) on merging that article with this one. -R. fiend 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't see why not. haz (user talk) 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

Wouldn't it be really, really funny if a year from now it turned out somebody discovered John Seigenthaler actually WAS involved in the assassination? And all this was just a way of the old guy trying to defend himself?

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day, I guess. -R. fiend 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's only been 42 years, so the truth should come out any day now. Gamaliel 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia critic misrepresents the Seigenthaler affair

The OfficialWire, a website of Greg Lloyd Smith, stated that the inaccurate statement about Seigenthaler "was eventually removed by Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, but only after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler." [5] This gave me the impression that Seigenthaler had spent four months trying to delete the statement but finding all his edits reverted. That wasn't consistent with what I thought I'd read about the incident, so I came here to get the details. I'm relieved to see that OfficialWire's story wasn't accurate. JamesMLane 10:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This "story" seems to be a hoax from the people who brought you QuakeAID. Gamaliel 18:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If You're Not Part Of The Solution, You're Part Of The Problem

I found it funny that Mr Seigenthaler had all the energy and drive to pursue the developer of Wikipedia, along with the syndicated websites, when he had just as much access and ability to fix the problem as the perpetrator had to cause it all. (Probably not worded as clearly as I would have liked...) Yes, I would be upset if I found slanderous material about myself on any website, a public-contribution site like this one or on a private webpage. But rather than get angry about it, or start throwing the word "sue" around, I, personally, would have tried to fix the problem myself (if possible).

What was not mentioned in the "news article" (if you can call it that)/open letter to the editor written by Mr Seigenthaler regarding this incident is the fact that Wikipedia can, have in the past, and probably would at his request, lock a page to prevent further modification/updates if there is a pattern of abuse. I have seen this done once or twice, and if the dynamic open-contribution nature of Wiki scares him, then that might be an idea.

I wonder whether he also realised that the number of news articles and syndicated content now littered around the interweb which would associate his name to all of those false allegations is now far higher than it would have been if he had helped us to help him in the first place and left it like that.

--Lucanos 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he realized that in advance. He's no media neophyte. It's common knowledge in the field of defamation that bringing a lawsuit will usually have the drawback of further disseminating the initial false accusation. Obviously, Seigenthaler knew that writing this up for USA Today, even without an actual lawsuit, would have the same effect. His actions show that he judged, probably correctly, that this false statement about him wouldn't actually hurt him at all, because no one whose opinion mattered to him would believe it. I infer that his primary concern wasn't for his reputation. JamesMLane 05:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I can kind of understand that - the fact that he was wanting to draw attention to the fact that information can be shared here which might be assumed as being completely accurate and correct when in fact it could be anything but, however there are better ways...
It's kind of like the code of conduct which has been adopted by people who find security glitches in software now - tell the manufacturer and see if they can create a solution (in this case, blocking IP addresses, tracing the address, protecting the page, etc.) before going public. And, if they don't respond appropriately to the tip-off, then show your hand and get the press involved.
I mean, Jimmy Wales, the founder, responded quickly to the incident when it was brought to his attention, and I agree that a permanent solution to prevent re-occurances like this one is hard to design, but there are better ways that just contacting the traditional media and blabbering about it.... Isn't there?

--Lucanos 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This came up before. I want to point out that Mr Seigenthaler or for that matter, anyone defamed, had no obligation to interact with the author of the defamation, i.e. the Wikipedia, in any way.

So I would retitle this section to If you're not writing in the Wikipedia, you are neither part of the problem nor part of the solution.

I will go even further and suggest by not correcting the article and drawing public attention to it, he served the Wikipedia by focusing on the question of defamatory editing, and the communal responsibility of Wikipedia editors to correct it. patsw 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eric Newton is mad that his IP address isn't shown in the history

Wicked truths about Wikipedia show weakness of online encyclopedia: Eric Newton is upset that his IP address and copyvio contribution isn't in the history. The fact that his role is described in the article apparently doesn't count. I appreciate that the media is more aware of Wikipedia procedures, and some are beginning to stop criticizing us for being what we never claimed to be, but this seems a little excessive. - BanyanTree 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Those wondering about the 19 December 2005 conversation between Mr. Newton and BrokenSegue can find it at User talk:24.48.154.89. Jokestress 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Another merge suggestion

There's a suggested merge tag over at Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) directing the discussion to here. We've got no info on Chase other than his involvement in this controvery, and this article already covers the relevant facts (putting them in the proper context of the controversy). I've already said this over there, but to me the merge is an obviously good idea. In fact, since the merge is already done, I'd be inclined to go ahead and turn that article into a redirect, if it weren't for the fact that I did it a couple times in weeks past and it was reverted. There are some folks who are rabidly opposed to such a merge, so I was curious what the people who watch this article think. Friday (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge. Gflores ^Talk 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I too support a merge. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As before, I also support such a merge. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the merge is already done, so if anyone's brave enough to make the redirect, be my guest. Friday (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue has already been voted upon several times and the vote has always been to keep. It is only User:Friday who again and again tries to merge out this article. Sam Sloan 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's alot or support for a redirect, it's just not as organized as the keep separate group. -R. fiend 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's strange that the editors on the two pages have such opposing points of view. I've raised this question on the other talk page and results have not been encouraging. I fully realize that, in the past, there hasn't been a consensus for the merge among the editors who talked about it. What I was trying to find out was, among the editors who still care about it today, is there consensus for a merge? If you disagree with the merge, feel free to explain why. So far everyone here has been in favor except Sam, and I don't see that you've given a reason why a merge is a bad idea. Friday (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW I suppose I should be more clear. Before anyone objects to the merge, they should realize that ship has already sailed. The article is already merged and has been for months. So, all that's left to argue about now is whether to have redundant information in two different articles. To most of us, I think, the answer is an obvious no. I would have redirected it already, but User:Sam Sloan has said he will revert it. I should also point out that we're not really supposed to have redundant articles on the same topic. Yes, I know Chase as a person is a different topic than the hoax affair, but the only content in his article is about the hoax, which we already have a whole article on. The Chase article has had months to grow as a seperate article, just in case there was more to be said about him. But, even now, all we have on him is what's already explained here. Friday (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Eric Newton violated multiple Wikipedia policies

I also put this on the talk page for the Eric Newton article, but just so there is some clarity about Newton's involvement, he has complained about Wikipedia:

"They say anyone can edit it. That is not true. I couldn't." [6]

It would have been more accurate to say he could and did edit it, but all his edits prior to that article were in violation of Wikipedia policies. His first violation involved copyright infringement. He lifted a copyrighted bio verbatim from the Freedom Forum.

The Freedom Forum bio of Seigenthaler [7] links to his official biography on the First Amendment Center site. [8] That site has a very clear copyright policy:

"Copyright the First Amendment Center. The text and images on this Web site are copyrighted and may not be reposted, republished, copied or reproduced without permission. [...] Although you cannot copy the text and repost or reproduce it elsewhere, you may link to any page on this site without asking permission." [9]

Newton (or someone claiming to be him) then returned in December and added edits stating Newton was the anonymous editor who had violated copyright, though there was no published source for this claim. This is another Wikipedia violation, this time against the No Original Research policy. Now that he has published the January 2006 Sun-Sentinel piece quoted above, there's a verifiable source, and Newton's name can be included.

Newton and like-minded journalists are all up in arms about Wikipedia, but I am sure they've run the occasional "we regret the error" retraction. Pranks can happen at "professional" newspapers, in clear violations of their policies. [10] Journalists and Wikipedians are not perfect, but there are policies in place to reduce pranks and errors.

Bottom line: in attempting to fix one violation, Newton violated several other Wikipedia policies, and then he complained about it in print. Just wanted to expand here on what should be a fairly minor point in the article. Jokestress 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this just the beginning?

Is this controversy over, or just beginning? Also, do you think it will seriously affect the outcome of Wikipedia's future?

It's just beginning - but I don't mean that pessimisticly. I mean that as Wikipedia is just beginning. And yes, it will serioulsy affect Wikipedia's future. It already has. And again, I mean that positively: Wikipedia:Stable versions. Kevin Baas^talk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It'll likely happen again. There are thousands of unverified, completely inaccurate, or just plain awful articles lying around. I'm sure at least one has a bit of libel in it. It's just a matter of whether a good editor finds it before its subject does. -R. fiend 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This controversy was an overblown, flash in the pan story that's already long forgotten by the rest of the world. And R. fiend is right, there's probably more of this waiting to happen. It's a very good reason for all editors to be concerned about verifiability. If we report what the NY Times says and they were wrong, they get the heat, not us. Friday (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

removed mention of me

I didn't reply on the wikipedia review board; this was pretty obvious from looking at it don't you think?--Jimbo Wales 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Chase redirect

Redirected Brian Chase to here, primarily on the grounds of kindness and human dignity. Daniel Brandt violated this man's privacy severely by releasing his name and identity to the press, when a private word with John Siegenthaler, Jr. and me would have been a better course of action. It's too late now to eliminate the name from the Internet, but at least we should consider that this poor fellow doesn't deserve that the story onf one silly prank in his life be the #2 hit in google for his name. There is no lack of information in doing the redirect (and I've not deleted the old stuff yet, so that people may salvage any added information from there if so desired). --Jimbo Wales 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a distortion. I agree that a separate article on Mr. Chase was not justified; I said so in the press last December. But while I played a role in identifying Mr. Chase, it was the New York Times and John Seigenthaler, Sr. who had more influence than I when it came to getting his name into print. And as I recall, Mr. Seigenthaler had a "private word" with you about how he might identify the vandal, and you gave him a song and dance about how Wikipedia is helpless (and by implication, blameless) in these matters. You didn't try very hard to help Mr. Seigenthaler. I tried a little bit harder than you. And now you slam me for violating this "poor fellow's" privacy. Mr. Wales, you owe me an apology. Daniel Brandt 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about this; certainly I do on a moral level, although on a practical level, I'm undecided. But didn't that article survive an AfD? I don't know if you should be micromanaging article content like this. You could at least limit your input to a suggestion and then see if other people agree with you. Everyking 12:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it a little more, I think the redirect is fine, but I still think you should make suggestions about these things and not just do them yourself. Everyking 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is odd that the issue was debated extensively over a period of nearly three months, two votes were taken, more than one hundred users expressed their views, and the final outcome was to keep the article, and then, after all this, Jimbo used his special prerogatives to delete the article. He did however keep the history in tact so that we can review the past edits and see what happened. Sam Sloan 13:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"They final outcome was to keep the article." will you ever get sick of giving such oversimplications of the situation and just deal with the fact that the blindingly obvious decision was fianlly made? -R. fiend 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of a few very vocal objectors (Sam Sloan being the biggest, probably), there was pretty obvious consensus for a merge. A look at the talk pages involved should show this. Also, there was no deletion done. A redirect is not a deletion. The sooner people understand this, the fewer silly arguments we'll have to have. Friday (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the name being redirected. As most people said at the time - his name was famous at the time, but is unlikely to be important at all in 3 months' time. It was relevant to release his name, however in the interests of privacy, a separate article on him should not have been made. And really, in the interests of privacy, we should endeavour to delete all references to him by name from Wikipedia. Replace "Brian Chase" with "an anonymous Wikipedia editor". While we're at it, we should also delete all references to "Daniel Brandt", with the exceptions to what he approves of. Its the same issue really. Invading someone's privacy is a big issue, and while there should be an article on Google Watch and Wikipedia Watch, there is no need to have an article on Daniel Brandt himself.

Oh and can I add that there is really no need to keep an article on the biography controversy either. Just a small note in the John Seigenthaler Sr. article should suffice. In the interests of privacy, of course.

NOTOC?

Why no table of contents? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Under Attack by Fascist Elites

The Seigenthaler controversy smells to me like a deliberate, manufactured attempt by elites to discredit Wikipedia, as part of a more general anti-democratic crackdown. According to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, "it was Seigenthaler himself that attacked Congress for passing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which protects ISPs and web sites from being held legally responsible for disseminating content provided by their customers and users." I submit that Seigenthaler's shown a motive to want to set Wikipedia up, thus demonstrating a supposed need for internet 'reform'. I can't take him seriously when he says, "Every politician is going to find himself or herself subjected to the same sort of outrageous commentary that hit me, and hits others. I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result of that." Yes, and it will be Seigenthaler himself out front pushing for that 'reform'. And what's the connection between Seigenthaler and the ostensible 'vandal', Brian Chase? If elites didn't manufacture this scandal out of whole cloth, then they've certainly cynically exploited it to further the cause of repression of the public. I think democracy scares those with privilege, and Wikipedia is democracy's poster-child. 24.147.110.97 07:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)pipcallas

EPIPHANY

Make every anon a sysop. That way anarchy will occur and, due to the Seigenthaler Effect, wikipedia will have ten billion articles in several weeks. --SeanMcG 08:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text removal

I suggest this should go:

Since many people read Seigenthaler's op-ed, and few people responded to the original article, some [citation needed] Wikipedia contributors (known as Wikipedians) questioned his reluctance to simply correct the page. Other contributors pointed out the existence of an autobiography guideline on Wikipedia which is often interpreted to mean that users may not edit pages about themselves, and still others noted that even if he corrected the page, he would have to keep track of it for the rest of his life to be sure that inaccuracies were not added and compared opting-out of spam to the demand that Seigenthaler fix the inaccuracies himself.

First it's unsourced. Second, even if sources are found, the wording is entirely wrong, because it's meaningless to talk of Wikipedians feel in general. If some Wikipedian said something, that was noted in reliable media, than quote them, but don't summarize, or paraphrase. --Rob 15:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is very significant, for two tenets of the Wikipedia process are that errors will be corrected and that anyone seriously wronged has the option to correct a major problem. You apparently failed to distinguish between Wikipedians in general in your post and the phrase actually used, "some Wikipedians", which has a very different meaning. There's no shortage of Wikipedia authors who can be quoted on this. It's likely that the talk page for the article will contain sufficient primary source quotes for the purpose and similarly likely that more primary sources will be found in the mainling list archives, which are usually regarded as a sufficiently accurate representation of what people actually said. Jamesday 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't Victor S. Johnson, Jr. just delete the garbage on John Seigenthaler Sr. page?

It should be stated if Victor S. Johnson, Jr. even knew what wikipedia was.--Greasysteve13 12:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It should also be stated that by that time, the garbage had been copied to dozens of Wikipedia mirrors. Many of them have considerable update lag times. Even if the garbage had been deleted from Wikipedia, it would have remained visible in the mirrors for days to weeks.

That little word "just" is tendentious. In the first place, it's hardly fair to suggest that the burden of keeping Wikipedia accurate should fall on the subjects of the articles, who did not ask to have an article about them and may not know that it is there. But even if it were, while anyone may be able to "just" correct a Wikipedia entry, there is no easy way to ensure prompt correction on all of Wikipedia's mirrors. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, okay. But I was talking about Victor S. Johnson, Jr.'s discovery on John Seigenthaler Sr. article not his own.--Greasysteve13 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand the dude was born 100 years ago.--Greasysteve13 07:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be no positive obligation on anyones part to avoid slander or libel. It is the obligation of the editor to avoid it. It doesn't matter what the medium is. Just because Wikipedia is easier to edit than, say, the newspaper, it is not relieved of it's burden to get facts correct. The subject is under no obligation to correct errors. --Tbeatty 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Zanimum 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In case everyone forgot, people are essentially never supposed to edit articles about themselves or their companies, families, etc. in the first place. The only real exception to this is correcting minor clerical errors (like dates) and grammar. Quoted directly from WP:NOT: Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [11] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. Expecting someone to police an article about themself is neither legally viable, nor practical. ("They could have corrected it" will not stop any legitimate libel suit.) --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue at Hand

Ever hear the question "Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers?"

It’s a valid question and one everyone ought to ask even about articles they write themselves. Sometimes a sentence can simply be read in an unintended way. Open editing is a speedy and a cooperative way to overcome the blind eye sponsored by our egos.

Unlike printed and aired media the Wikipedia gives everyone an opportunity for direct input through open editing and through discussing the article and proposed changes themselves.

After visiting http://www.20q.net (which is supposed to represent a universal database produced from a highly accurate neural network algorithm and billions of user inputs) it is still relatively inaccurate even when an individual user’s input is truthful and precise in itself.

Review of the answers 20q holds to be correct for most any item merely demonstrates that failing to remove inaccuracies is not the way to go. The idea that inaccuracies will eventually be outweighed and absorbed by accurate input is simply proven by 20q to be very untrue. By comparison the open edit method has proven itself to be valid and reliable over time. The open edit concept assures accuracy of knowledge which other publication formats consistently fail to do.

209.216.92.232 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree. John made the point that all users of wikipedia has known for years, but his rationale seems to further suggest no media can be trusted. There has been a hoax made by journalists (Great Wall of China hoax), and there were NY Time scandals. Oh come on, even worse these reporters never wrote in anonymity. I doubt if old john would conclude that it were "incurable flaws" for newspaper, and even human nature. Sorry for his suffering, but his claim is exaggeration--- if he didn't, how could it be heard? A media training 101. Really tired of this --- Yau

He deserves an award

Either as "Wikipedia Publicist of the Year" for pushing Wikipedia firmly into the mainstream and creating a huge boom in traffic, or as "Incompetent of the Year" for achieving the opposite of what he set out to do. 62.31.55.223 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just stupid. And what in fact did he "set out to do"? He set out to remove the libel, and point out that Wikipedia can really not be too reliable some of the time. This resulted in the semi-protect feature and increased referencing standards, both of which have become integral and natural to the community. While people always wanted these standards in place, this was the kick in the butt, albeit an embarassing kick, that we need to kick things in gear. -- Zanimum 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Civility and also look up irony in a dictionary. Nonomy 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable?

<removed link to attack site>Some conspiracy theorists think that Seigenthaler actually masterminded the Kennedy assassination and sent men in black to jimbo wales to force him to remove it. Can it be listed? DyslexicEditor 09:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. According to the site, Christians can be defined as "A zealous Christ fanboy." They're just a unfunny parody site, end of story. Thus, if they're joking, then no one really thinks this. -- Zanimum 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fanboy is a new way of putting worship. I noticed the article after seeing that their 9/11 article shares the same conspiracy stuff as some articles here... well see this. DyslexicEditor 02:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is good for

As someone who is both new to and very enthusiastic about Wikipedia, I've given some thought to the question of what this site is good for.

My thinking is, Wikipedia is brilliant for learning information, call it hard knowledge of a particular subject. Wikipedia, however, is a complete disaster for any subject, topic or issue that is both (a) controversial, and (b) part of the general public discourse.

By the very nature of the site, Wikipedians naturally tend to contribute to articles about things they are enthusiastic about. Enthusiasm and time breeds knowledge. Therefore, an astronomer, say, will not write an article about plumbing—he or she will write about the stars, which is a wonderful thing for the rest of us. The astronomer's natural enthusiasm for the subject matter will infuse the article, making it not only informed but also—and just as importantly—interesting to us non-astronomers. Clearly, there is an enormous difference in the prose style of someone who is writing something they are passionate about, and the style of someone who is writing under duress. This difference, subtle and hard to pin down though it may be, clearly affects a reader's response to the material. A passionate specialist will in all likelihood write an interesting, easily understood article about the most arcane topics of the field, making even the minutiae interesting to the non-specialist.

Furthermore, and this is key to understanding the attractiveness of Wikipedia and other sites like it, a knowledgeable, enthusiastic specialist will have no reason to supply inaccurate hard knowledge of a particular subject. Enthusiasm breeds respect—respect automatically breeds care and rigor.

However, by the same token, an enthusiastic, knowledgeable, rigorous astronomer will also be an enthusiastic sports fan, a knowledgeable political supporter, a rigorous religious (or anti-religious) adherent, et cetera. That knowledgeable specialist will have equally passionate views on a whole host of subjects outside their field of expertise—fields that are part of the general discourse and at the same time incredibly controversial.

This is where Wikipedia fails.

Everyone has opinions concerning issues of the general discourse: Which is the "best" sports team, which political view is "right", which religion is "true". Some of these issues of the general discourse are trivial, and rarely beget controvery; for instance, which is the "best" basketball team, the Knicks or the Lakers? Who knows? Who cares?

However, other issues of the general discourse are extraordinarily controversial—for instance, abortion, immigration, Iraq, to name only three, and only in passing.

When an issue is at once controversial and part of the general discourse, it is unavoidable that passions will rise and Wikipedians will flex their fingers and tap away at their keyboards. When that happens, when controversy meets up with issues in the public discourse, articles will degenerate into flame wars, as I discovered when perusing the article on the DaVinci Code: Wikipedia administrators had to start banning people because of the vandalism going on. And that was just over a silly novel.

Thus my feeling: Wikipedia is a wonderful tool to quickly discover new and exciting things beyond one's sphere of knowledge. But for controversial subjects in the general discourse, it is a disaster.

The question then, of course, becomes, How do we delineate between the two?

The answer is, We don't.

Certainly astronomy and abortion are the two extremes of this dichotomy—the one specialised and non-controversial, hard-knowledge in the best sense; the other affecting everyone and completely fraught with controversy, soft-opinion no matter what arguments and evidence is deployed. But the gray area in between is what concerns us. That gray area is not only the place where frauds are committed—it is also where inaccuracies, deliberate or not, come into play.

Clearly, Wikipedia wants to avoid inaccuracies. But considering the amount of information that is accumulating, it is impossible for some central system or board of editors to police the whole site. As a practical problem, no board or central system would have the time or the expertise to make valid judgements.

Therefore, the best way to avoid inaccuracies and frauds is by self-policing. On its face, this seems like such a soft option, but I see no other way around the problem. Banning specific topics or subjects from Wikipedia would go precisely against the whole spirit of the enterprise. Leaving articles alone and accepting any foolishness by any contributor as "a matter of opinion" or "a valid point of view" is equally wrong—the assembling of hard-knowledge which is so useful would degenerate into a collection of soft-opinions that would serve no purpose aside from ego-gratification.

Self-policing, though imperfect, is probably the only way to go. It is also potentially very reliable so long as the Wikipedia system allows the edits but also allows people to compare the current version with previous versions. If previous versions are wiped from the system, or if there isn't a simple, immediate way to compare the current version of an article with a previous version, then the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia's hard-knowledge base will be questioned. People have to see the effects of the self-policing, for that policing to earn our respect.

Some thoughts, probably random and foolish, from a new, enthusiastic user.

I actually find that the political articles that I run into -- even the heavily contested articles such as the Middle East ones -- tend to be pretty high in quality. Also, entire technical areas have low quality, such as computer graphics when I last glanced through it. Yet other areas have higher quality: math isn't really formal enough, but Wikipedia tends to be either growing towards or even surpassing MathWorld on some subjects; to me, it looks like there's real potential there. I was impressed by the general informativeness and readability of Mandelbrot set, which one would expect to be a complete "hobbyist topic," and edited into "chaos." Yet thermodynamics and chemical engineering had almost no articles, when I looked at them a year ago. There are still only three sentences on LPCVD reactors. I guess what I'm saying is that I haven't gotten the same impression as you -- what I've found is that there are hot spots and cold spots in terms of amount of content and quality, and these "spots" are dependent on the category. My theory is that the amount of content has to get over some threshold to attract enough contributors to make a difference. I don't know what causes good or bad quality on the social scale. Then again, I have highly idiosyncratic ways of going about things, and I'm interested in a wide range of very specific topics, so I wouldn't say you or I are "wrong," just a different perspective. - Connelly 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would would someone claim responsibility?

It just doesn't make sense!--143.92.1.33 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nature's "response"

"Partly in response to this scandal, the scientific journal Nature published a study in December, 2005, in which Wikipedia was found to be similar in error rate to the Encyclopædia Britannica in scientific articles."

How can Nature's study have been in response to the Seigenthaler controversy, when the Nature study limited itself to scientific subjects, and the controversy had to do with a political-biographical article? If Nature did indeed publish their study under the guise of such a response, they have been patently disingenuous.

A believable "response" to the controversy would have been to compare all types of articles ; cultural, political, as well as scientific -- unless Wikipedia readers never use the website for anything other than scientific subjects and I missed that memo. Porfyrios 17:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the Nature article was a response although I expect it was. I think you're missing the point. The Seigenthaler controversy raise the issue of the reliability of wikipedia in general. Nature, being a scientific journal was interested to know on the reliability of wikipedia as related to scientific subjects. In this regard, it may have been partly in response. As stated, I have no idea what really went on but it's easy to assume the Nature study was carried out after the controversy raised the issue and therefore, Nature decided to get an idea of the reliability of wikipedia when it comes to scientific article.

As far as I know, although the Seigenthaler article was a biography and Seigenthaler himself raised the issue of defamation, the other issues he raised were wide reaching. He was not simply suggesting wikipedia was unreliable when it came to biographies or that it could be used by politicians and their enemies for sinister purposes but was suggesting wikipedia by nature and design was an unreliable source of information and should not be trusted. It was therefore completely relevant to address the issue of the reliability when it came to scientific articles. Nil Einne 09:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chrono order please

Folks: Unless there is a compelling reason, please always following chronology in a monotonic fashion. We are not telling an exciting story for the suspense value: we are reporting the truth in the order it happened. -- 67.121.112.5 10:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Article edits

This article was not in chrono order, did not report the story clearly, and contained a lot of editorializing (including a big chunk of generic wikiactivism-cruft)

Hopefully most of these are now fixed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

3.8 Million Articles?

It claims here that wikipedia has 3.8 million articles. This sounds really wrong, and I'm changing it to 1.27 million, as per the front page. --Gunny01 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that number included articles in languages other than English? Now there's 4.5 million international articles though, as of the beginning of July. (That sentence should reference only English articles though.) —AySz88\^-^ 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sentence needs clarification

This sentence:

The scientific journal Nature published a study in December, 2005, in which Wikipedia was found to contain a third again as many errors as the Encyclopædia Britannica in scientific articles.

Doesn't make sense. Third again? Do they mean third as many or something else? - DNewhall 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

~1.32 times as many. 162 in Wikipedia vs. 123 in Britannica. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me either. Propound 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Misleading. I've edited to remove the interpretation, and included the actual numbers. Blueapples 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Journalism.org Article Not Found

It seems that one of the external links (the one marked as "Seigenthaler and Wikipedia – Lessons and Questions") does not exist anymore. I don't know if this is permanent or temporary, however. Should it be taken off, or is there somewhere else it can be found? supreme_geek_overlord 15:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)"

I'm marking the link as inactive for the time being. — supreme_geek_overlord 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume this isn't the same thing: Seigenthaler and Wikipedia: A Case Study on the Veracity of the "Wiki" concept? -- Zanimum 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian Chase: born in 1977 or 38 years old?

In the article it is said that Chase was born 1977. But in an article on USToday (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-11-wikipedia-apology_x.htm), which is referenced by the article as 'Note #4', he is described as 38 years old. Which one is correct?195.49.158.14 09:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am not a math whiz, so somebody check me, but here's the logic. We know Chase was reported to be 38 on December 11, 2005.

• If his 2005 birthday is on or before December 11, he was born in 1967 and turned 38 that year.
• If his 2005 birthday is on or after December 12, he was born in 1966 and was about to turn 39.

In other words, there are 20 days in 2005 when he could have been born in 1966, and 345 days he could have been born in 1967, making it more than 94% likely he was born in 1967. Having said all that, to be precise, we should probably say he was 38 at the time the story broke (since he could have been 37 when he added the vandalism, but I won't bother with the mathematical equation on that). Still, it's very likely he was born in 1967. Jokestress 18:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)