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.