Tricky Wiki
The debate over Wikipedia is heating up on the heels of a December 1st USA Today op-ed by retired journalist John Seigenthaler in which he claims the online encyclopedia, which can be edited by anyone and has been hailed as an outlet for collective-knowledge gathering, was the conduit for "Internet character assassination."
As we previously discussed, Seigenthaler's Wikipedia bio read in part as follows:
On Monday, the Associated Press reported that Wikipedia was tightening its rules for submitting entries following Seigenthaler's piece. The site's founder, Jimmy Wales, said people will now need to register before creating articles, though they can still modify existing articles without registering. (As the AP notes, "It takes 15-to-20 seconds to create an account on the website, and an e-mail address is not required." Seigenthaler has been unable to discover who wrote the offending passage about him.)
USA Today has been all over this story, not surprising considering that Seigenthaler was the paper's founding editorial director. Yesterday it ran a piece entitled "It's online, but is it true?" Here's a bit:
As we previously discussed, Seigenthaler's Wikipedia bio read in part as follows:
"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."Responded Seigenthaler: “One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer.”
On Monday, the Associated Press reported that Wikipedia was tightening its rules for submitting entries following Seigenthaler's piece. The site's founder, Jimmy Wales, said people will now need to register before creating articles, though they can still modify existing articles without registering. (As the AP notes, "It takes 15-to-20 seconds to create an account on the website, and an e-mail address is not required." Seigenthaler has been unable to discover who wrote the offending passage about him.)
USA Today has been all over this story, not surprising considering that Seigenthaler was the paper's founding editorial director. Yesterday it ran a piece entitled "It's online, but is it true?" Here's a bit:
"…critics worry that not all Internet citizens are savvy enough to realize that most information online needs to be taken with a grain of salt.Wales himself says that "[a]ny place where the general public is allowed to freely express their opinion without having any sort of prior approval from authority — it is dangerous." But he adds: "Free speech is dangerous. But it's also incredibly powerful and useful."
"The problem is that Wikipedia is so often considered authoritative," wrote Dave Winer..."That must stop now, surely. Every fact in there must be considered partisan, written by someone with a confect of interest.""
Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror.
