December 11th, 2005
Wikipedia “Prankster” Admits to Seigenthaler Post
By Michael Santo
Contributing Writer, RealTechNews
Wikipedia made some changes to their posting policy recently, as reported by Jimmy. This was really centered around 2 “scandals”, one of them involving Adam Curry editing out references to other people involved in the genesis of podcasting. The other involved John Seigenthaler Sr., and entries made to his biography that falsely suggested he may have been involved in the assassinations of both Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy.
Well, the “prankster” (and I use the term loosely), Brian Chase, 38, has admitted to adding the false information … but only after he found himself being cornered in the world of the Internet … though he did state that he felt remorse (and fear) after hearing through the news about the effect on Seigenthaler.
In a letter to Seigenthaler, Chase said he thought that Wikipedia was a “gag” Web site and that he had written the assassination tale to shock a co-worker, who knew of the Seigenthaler family and its illustrious history in Nashville.
“It had the intended effect,” Chase said of his prank in an interview. But Chase said that once he became aware through news accounts of the damage he had done to Seigenthaler, he was remorseful and scared of what might happen to him.Chase also found that he was slowly being cornered in cyberspace, thanks to the sleuthing efforts of Daniel Brandt, 57, of San Antonio, Texas, who makes his living as a book indexer. Brandt has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia and started an anti-Wikipedia Web site in September after reading what he said was a false entry about himself. Source: The Seattle Times
Apparently Seigenthaler is not going to pursue legal action against Chase, who resigned from his job at a delivery company because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company.
We Say: So he knew enough about Wikipedia to be able to edit an article, but he didn’t realize it wasn’t a gag site? Hard to believe, especially since the Wikipedia About page clearly says it’s an encyclopedia. Additionally, when you edit a section, there’s a line that says “Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources.” I’m not sure if this line has changed since the recent editorial changes went into effect, but I’m sure something similar to this must have been there previously. I hope Chase is being honest about his remorse, but this was a really serious affront to Seigenthaler, and it’s interesting that he didn’t come forward until Brandt starting getting really close to finding him, per the article.
Daniel Case says:
At the time Chase pulled his prank, that line wasn’t there. It was added in the last month or so, mainly to head off people who repeatedly repost copyrighted material (what, exactly, it should say has been the subject of intense debate on Wikipedia for some time).
December 11th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
Michael Santo says:
Ah, OK. I wasn’t sure it was there or not. On the other hand, it should still be clear from looking at the About page that it’s not a gag site … or even from the front page.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Stephen says:
For me..anonymous posting (since corrected) and anonymous editing = gag site.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Humanity's Child says:
Yes, reliable sources–says Wikipedia–are all that are allowed. But that is a false claim made by Wikipedia. Sources were never seriously checked in an article I have worked on and tried to make honest.
I have been badly burned in Wikipedia, and am trying to make more facts about this online DISinformation source and its inner politics better known.
While Wikipedia has been touted as “fairly accurate” in the hard sciences–perhaps the most easily verifiable information of all–when it comes to anything else–biography, history, philosophy, the social sciences–Wikipedia can be spectacularly INaccurate. And when it’s inaccurate, as John Seigenthaler learned to his horror, real people get it in the neck.
Take myth number one: –If there is an error, will it be found and fixed in Wikipedia? Not on your life–not if it is a deliberate falsehood that an “editing ‘gang’” is imposing on an article (see below). And not if a person with a lot of time and an axe to grind keeps on restoring any lie they please.
Then look at this fact: If there is a person you want to get revenge on, just log into Wikipedia and say whatever you wish to say on a “Talk” or Discussion Page. Just pick the smear you think will hurt most and write it in. It will show up in Google searches, your enemy can complain as much as he or she desires, and nothing will be done by Wikipedia–if he or she is not as famous as John Seigenthaler, Sr.
If there is an article in which you might be mentioned maliciously, the same holds true. Perhaps the Wikipedia administration has become more cautious now. I hope so.
I admire John Seigenthaler, Sr., for his intelligent response to this lack of accountability in Wikipedia.
The New York Daily News (December 13, 2005) wrote: “An entry on Russian history might come from a Nobel Prize-winning professor, or it might come from an escapee from a lunatic asylum.” Or, from someone posing as an authority, who is doing a hatchet job.
There are editors in Wikipedia that relish this lack of control and form little “gangs” to impose their smears and misrepresentations on articles by outnumbering other editors–including those with expert training and legitimate points of view.
Wikipedia itself has an article “What’s Wrong with Wikipedia?” that says: “Editors have learned that formation into ‘gangs’ is the most effective way of imposing their view on opposite-minded contributors.”
I have been “slashed and burned” by such a gang, and I know whereof I speak. Wikipedia has let them go ahead with their dirty business, their foul language, their false and hurtful assaults on my profession and personal reputation. Real libel–actual malice in legal terms–has been passed off as “editing” by the Wikipedia administrators who are supposed to ride shotgun to keep the encyclopedia safe from “vandals,” as they are called.
I am a great advocate of open source. Open source is needed to spread technology and prevent software monopolies. But “open source knowledge” has not come of age. If ten people without medical knowledge try to do bypass surgery on a patient, or even 500 try it, I pity the patient. If 500 people ignorant of French Literature write a Wikipedia article on it, I pity the article. Or if a “gang” of 5 people motivated by contempt and ill-will “rewrite” an honest article, the result can be a libelous horror. I have seen such a piece of work in progress. If this is done to an infrequently-visited article–says “What’s Wrong with Wikipedia”–the misinformation will remain. Or if someone tries to restore its integrity, the “gang” will continually reset the article to their own version.
Many of us have been seriously libeled in Wikipedia. But if you SAY you are being libeled in the Wikipedia Discussion pages, Wikipedia admins regard you as “threating legal action” and can ban you.
And is it true that the new Wikipedia policy of requiring editors to register before starting an article will mean the truth is better protected? No. When users register, they are even more anonymous than before! They are known ONLY by a screen name. The real name is almost always unknown. The IP is unknown too. So Jimmy Wales is, on this point, shall we say, lying?
So, as teachers, librarians, and journalists are learning across the country: If you want accurate information don’t trust Wikipedia.
But now, the cavalry, led by John Seigenthaler, Sr., is charging to the rescue.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:33 am
google pr main says:
hello! http://www.areaseo.com/contacts/ google pr. high your rank, Search Engine Optimization, Professional SEO. From google pr .
March 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pm