Talk:John Seigenthaler/Archive 2

message: I externally linked the Wikipedia-namespace articles Wikipedia:Anonymity and Wikipedia:Accountability after the paragraph describing Seigenthaler's editorial. Since the paragraph raises issues both about Wikipedia's anonymity and accountability, I thought that links to Wikipedia's policies on those subjects would be objectively useful, as described in Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. (I certainly think the USA Today article would've been better if it referred to those web pages.)
Does anyone agree, or have any other Wikipedia-namespace articles that would be more appropriate? I don't spend much time there, so I'm not that familiar with it. Eliot 02:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should mention that this is only relevant to the extent to which the paragraph should be there in the first place. I wouldn't be opposed to removing it, except that it would just get put back in right away. Eliot 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with both of you. Some small "See Also" for people researching this current, albeit trivial, issue would be useful. The Robert McHenry article is facing a similar quandary. Dystopos 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That article explicitly states that Wikipedia pages can be externally linked when they are objectively useful, i.e. when they are not a 'self-reference.' My position is that if that paragraph isn't self-reference, then the relevant Wikipedia policies aren't either. (Although as I said, I suspect that paragraph is self-reference. Surely this isn't even close to the most important article this emeritus journalist has ever written. Eliot 12:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The self-reference page probably needs updating to reflect the current prominence of Wikipedia. Today it's inappropriate not to have some self-references in carefully considered situations. Such things as lists of the top 50 web sites are one example, but cases where Wikipedia content is prominent may also need it to be complete and neutral. This is also one case where, unfortunately, some self-reference needs to be considered, since Wikipedia is part of the story. Jamesday 12:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Wikipedia pages 

message: I removed a section that tried to deal with the Wiki controversy by saying "Some people think ... however, ... most think ....". That's not NPOV, it's waffle. 
We probably need to link to some on-Wiki discussion of the impact of the Siegenthaler article rather than try to summarise it on this page. The Land 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not. That's an overt self-reference. Summarising it here is exactly the right thing to do. -Splashtalk 17:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's appropriate for this article to refer to the Wikipedia ontroversy. I don't think it's appropriate for it to refer in a manner that mainly consists of weasel words. The Land 17:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I know what the document says, I wouldn't cite it otherwise. I didn't say we shouldn't refer to the controversy. But we don't need to link to internal Wikipedia discussions of the article which, frankly, have nothing at all do with the controversy. The controversy is entirely external to the Wikipedia community who have and are happily rewriting/reverting as needed. Noone inside Wiki is disagreeing over this article.-Splashtalk 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Are you saying we can't write neutrally about the controversy? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you jumping in without reading the discussion properly? -Splashtalk 02:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I take your point. Thanks! (Though I'd point out that this is Wikipedia and, therefore, has controversies about everything on principle). The Land 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,....in an evil moment, I thought about nominating an nn journalist for deletion, just to stir things up a bit...-Splashtalk 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Granted, the article is about the individual the bio is written about, not any sort of diagreement about his views. Nonetheless a very controversial position is put forward by the individual in this article. Perhaps this section could be trimmed and moved to an article about the controversy over community-created content such as Wikipedia? It's patently non-factual to claim that there is no controversy. 134.50.7.201 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea, actually, although it might at present fall foul of the rules prohibiting original research. On your other point, The Land was referring to controversy within the Wikipedia community. There isn't any. There's just some alerts of the new status of the article, and this talk page which is concerned with discussing the article. -Splashtalk 17:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I think the controversy is rather overstated and misconstrued.  Slashdot may be getting excited over this, but to judge from the village pump, Wikipedia is mostly in agreement with Seigenthaler.  To most of the outside world, the main controversy is over Wikipedia's accountability, not Seigenthaler's criticism.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 17:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's significant that the subject of the article (in his own article) implies that there should be some sort of governmental/legislative remedy to these issues. Perhaps the controversy was misconstrued, but there is definite disagreement over the position which the individual takes with how the problem of inaccurate edits to articles should be addressed. (Sadly, I think this article may need to be locked temporarily -- not because of the controversy but because of the ridiculous amount of vandalism happening at the moment.) 134.50.7.201 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry: it takes a lot more than this to even make a bump in the background noise. Plus, at least some of the edits are good. -Splashtalk 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to the people who have more time than I do to revert the vandalism. (I'm a Wikipedia novice, can you tell? I really want to contribute though.) I've been catching some, but I need to go eat. =) 134.50.7.201 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  It is significant, but his objection is that everywhere except online, libel can be effectively prosecuted.  One would expect some legislative remedy to still exist, but that recourse has for some reason been lost.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 18:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snipped stuff

message: Read the sentence more closely (ignoring the Russia bit for now, for the sake of argument): "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." This is poorly written, misleading, and violates Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, but as long as the person who wrote it believed it at the time that they wrote it (thus satisfying the requirements of the passive voice),, then the sentence is literally true. Of course it's good that it's gone, but for Seigenthaler to prove that the sentence is false, he'd have to prove that nobody ever considered him to be involved in the Kennedy assassination. --Arcadian 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not only is this not [[libel]], technically, it's not even false.

message: Ugh, at least the discussion here is not as bad as on Slashdot... but come on, this is bad news for Wikipedia. Running around pretending that this stuff isn't a big deal isn't going to solve anything. You can't defend vandalism. You can't defend bogus claims and still pretend to be an encyclopedia. And yet, I come here, and that's exactly what I see. The old "well, why didn't you edit it" excuse. Well damnit, if everyone already knew everything, and could fix any problems in the article when they saw them, then we wouldn't need any encyclopedias! The whole point is that you meet at least some level of credibility. This diminishes it greatly. If the problem continues to be ignored then Wikipedia will become just a worthless sideshow.--72.19.75.72 18:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't if you help us edit it. -Splashtalk 19:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: He did correct the information.  There's an edit in the history (since deleted along with every other edit prior to October) which I believe is his.  Even if he hadn't, he still filed a complaint with Jimbo.  Regardless of what he did or didn't do, we shouldn't blame the victim and say, "Sorry, it was unavoidable".  Gamaliel 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, so next time one of you little trolls falsely accuses one of you other little trolls of something, the accused just gets on the phone to Jimbo and Jimbo will sort it. This is my last post at wiki*. Cyas, been fun while it was good. -- Spnspmbmartem 01:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quit being naive! 

message: I've only been here a couple of months and can count at least three others:
 Norwegian PM falsely accused of doing time for pedophilia--posted for about 22 hours before deletion
Embarassing misinformation that was posted for six weeks and made its way into a Swarthmore College press release
 Current WP editor falsely falsely said to be former member of SDS by anon IP on 6/12/04; claim is not removed until 8/17/04
I agree with Wrolf, " only registered users with confirmed e-mail addresses should be allowed to edit. We cannot expect responsibility with no accountability."
--FRS 01:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a lot of merit in this idea, but this isn't the place to debate a major change in Wikipedia policy.  Please try the mailing list or the Village Pump instead. Gamaliel 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, to toss in my fraction of a cent, i wrote up a semi lengthy screed about this problem, on my user page. have a look if interested. Anastrophe 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seigenthaler is far from the first victim of anonymous defamation 

message: Can the much discussed deleted revisions please be restored? It would be interesting to be able to view them in historical context and I don't think anyone could claim that the site is spreading libel as it has been proper, it would just be visible. This would allow for linking to the revision in question in the article allowing readers to see the text for themselves. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The revisions were deleted by an administrator at the direct request of Jimbo.  I don't think anyone's going to restore them without his okay. Besides, there's nothing in there that isn't already in the USA Today article. Gamaliel 01:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the more reason why they should be restored. Retractions have been volunteered by many here. The public at large need to understand that wiki is not static, and anyone can edit. Publishing something on wiki is not equivalent to publishing it in a book or magazine. -- Spnspmbmartem 01:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd. We are not a news source! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I happen to agree with Aevar here, but Gamaliel is right, no admin is going to overrule a direct request by Jimbo. (Though he ought to have done the deed himself rather than by IRC-proxy.) -Splashtalk 01:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ævar. The USA Today article was written by Seigenthaler himself; how do we know if it's an accurate quote? Perhaps it was selective: was there a stub notice on it or not? Melchoir 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seigenthaler quoted the entry accurately and in its entirety.  There was no stub notice, though what difference that would make I don't know. Gamaliel 02:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think it would be better if it was in plain sight so that everyone could verify that? I really don't see what the big deal is, what reasons did Jimbo give for why these revisions had to be deleted? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info, Gamaliel. Of course I trust you, but I still support an undelete. I wondered about a stub because it seems to me that Seigenthaler overreacted to an obviously inadequate version of this article. If there had been a stub notice, he might have reacted differently. Speaking of stubs... We've been listed on Fark and Slashdot, and a whole lot of people have seen only the modern form of this article, which contains lots of information and references. Many of them might be under the impression that the accusation persisted within a reputable-looking article instead of in the stub that it apparently was. I think this distinction should be a matter of record; it is certainly nothing to hide. Melchoir 03:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course the original post was vandalism. It was an attack page and should have been speedy deleted on that basis. The other users who subsequently edited it probably did not know that the information contained therein was inaccurate. (Saying that someone was suspected at some time of complicity in the JFK assassination is not particularly remarkable - dozens of public figures alive at the time have had that accusation leveled against them by some nut.) This slipped through the cracks because it was a bit more subtle than most of the obvious attack pages we see (many of which are tagged and deleted within 5 minutes). I agree it was offensive. I completely disagree that it rises to the level of actionable libel in the United States, which is deliberately made a very high barrier to meet in order to avoid chilling effects on the press's Constitutional rights. Firebug 05:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not have given him a cause of action against the Wikimedia Foundation at the time, which is undoubtedly a reason why he didn't sue. But undeleting now could well clear the barrier to which you refer, for the reasons I explained below just prior to your post. --Michael Snow 05:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems unlikely that a board member or employee of the Wikimedia Foundation will restore them. I assume that the CDA would protect the Foundation from the acts of others. Recall that in  a prominent case involving AOL, AOL employees repeatedly stated that AOL would remove defamation but AOL did not do so. Jamesday 12:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sure if you're prepared to underwrite Wikimedia's potential legal bills, it could be undeleted :) But seriously, the fact that the accusation was potentially libellous should be enough. That's the line the professional, serious publishers draw - and Wikipedia should adhere to the same sort of standards. ianbetteridge 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Jimbo has stated pretty clearly just above that the offending revisions should not be restored. I've articulated a theory about why restoring them now could bring even greater potential for liability than their presence originally. The current history does not deny his claim, it simply doesn't confirm it because confirmation in that fashion would involve repeating the potential defamation. Meanwhile, correcting an inaccurate statement produced by using a general-purpose template is perfectly reasonable. --Michael Snow 17:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undeletion 

message: I've found some wire articles published in the NYT on the freedom rider incident.  How would I cite those articles (no author) following our current note format? Lotsofissues 01:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think sourcing them to the Associated Press (or whatever wire service the story is bylined under) is appropriate. Often, that's how wire service stories are run. FCYTravis 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just miss out the firstname and lastname parameters (the template appears to be intelligent), and do  it as usual. -Splashtalk 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation help 

message: I don't like them.  Can I remove?  Lotsofissues 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs some structuring, but I'm not sure what the best structure is. It is a bit too long to have no headings at all. -Splashtalk 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, decades are not the best. Shouldn't it be better to do it via significant eras (wrong word, I know) of his life? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something like that is probably better. He's been a journalist for most of his life, though. So perhaps divide it up by  pre-politics, politics and post-politics? Or something. -Splashtalk 02:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't leave us with a structureles document. This is a sort of  approach. -Splashtalk 02:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decade divisions 

message: What is required.  Lotsofissues 14:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lead section needs to be fixed. We have almost nothing on his publications: if someone went to the library, read them and gave us a synopsis of each... that would be good. I think the article needs it. Then I'd submit to FAC! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines are at WP:FA if anyone's not already seen them. The Land 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It needs referencing altogether more thoroughly (imo), too. -Splashtalk 16:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting this up to FA 

message: :Seigenthaler supported Tennessee Bishop Joseph Aloysius Durick during the latter's contentious focus on social issues.
What kind of social issues did the Bishop focus on? Leftist (war, death penalty, consumerism, poverty) or rightist (abortion, homosexuality, school prayer) ones? Without that information, the significance of the above sentence remains unclear. AxelBoldt 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was the former: . I'll add it to the article. AxelBoldt 22:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop Durick 

message: I was just curious what WP articles linked to this article before the controversy broke. I found only six so far: Robert F. Kennedy, Freedom Riders, Profiles in Courage Award, John Seigenthaler Jr., John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler Sr.. Liblamb 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP linked articles before the controversy 

message: I removed the  and  templates from the article. I have several problems with them. First, they do not follow either MLA or APA style. Second, and more importantly, the wikify the names of every author and impose an arbitrary formn at that does not have community consensus and does not allow for flexibility. --Neutralitytalk 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no community consensus that we must follow "MLA or APA style", and even if we did we could just modify the templates. The point of using templates is to have a standard format, which we can change at one central point. The  tags allow direct click-through to the footnotes and back to the text. And I don't see why author's names should not be wikified, except the article subject himself, which makes the name appear in bold, but maybe the template can be modified in that respect too. Varizer 21:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. You should change the templates, not rip them out. Ripping them out makes formatting each of them much more time consuming.  is what you're looking for, rather than your rollback button, Neutrality. -Splashtalk 21:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I also agree. That's not the most constructive way of dealing with referencing issues! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template problem 

message: Most of them agree with some of us that Seigenthaler, wronged though he was, could have handled this a lot better (This is reposted from the discussion at the Village Pump.
:BTW, here's a blawgger, Daniel Solove, who says exactly what I've been saying:
::
::I certainly am sympathetic to Steigenthaler's [sic] plight, but his essay demonstrates how he attempted to take the wrong approach. First, the minute he found the false information on Wikipedia, he could have corrected it himself or had a friend do it. However, I don't know what process is available on Reference.com or Answers.com for making corrections. Second, if he wanted to sue the author of the entry for defamation, he could have done so by first filing a John Doe lawsuit in court. Courts provide special protection for anonymous speech, but that protection isn't absolute. For example, if Steigenthaler can establish a case sufficient enough to withstand a summary judgment motion, he will be able to unmask his defamer.
::
::And another:
::
::As an old-media guy, the nature of editors at Wikipedia is probably completely alien to Seigenthaler. The ability of Wikipedia, like the blogosphere, to self-correct is proportional to the number of eyeballs that view the page with sufficient interest to do something about it. Also, he is understandably upset. He was one of RFK's pallbearers and this scurrilous attack must be especially painful. But that last sentence was still jarring, coming from the founder of a center on the First Amendment.
::
::Same blawg, later post:
::
::Congress and the Courts weigh the privacy concerns of the users, but they are not absolute protections. If Seigenthaler wants the name of the anonymous Wikipedia editor badly enough, he can file a suit, and he'll get it if the Court says it's appropriate. In this case, the identity sought would be of the actual defendant, not a witness, and even though he's a public figure, the stuff posted to Wikipedia could be within the standard set by the court.
::...
::Populated by?!! Like many of the critics of the new media, Seigenthaler is ready to paint with a very broad brush ... this is like saying newspapers are populated by lying fabricators because of Jayson Blair, Walter Duranty , Mary Mapes ... oh, never mind.
::Seigenthaler gets some slack for being distraught ... yes, it's a lot easier for me to be high-minded ... I wasn't accused of being a murderer. But he had a golden opportunity to explain why protecting speech is worth the cost of having to protect the due process rights of even those as warped as whoever posted his now-deleted Wikipedia entry ... and he whiffed on it.
::
::Daniel Case 23:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link Daniel, but I'm not a lawyer, so it isn't a blawg, I guess (I'm a biochemist) JimHu 02:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered. Nevertheless, you write like one when you need to. Daniel Case 06:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal bloggers on the case 

message: Seigenthaler is the worst reputation challenge we have had to ever face.  In response, I think we should create a project devoted to inflating Wikipedia's prestige.
Some ideas:
#Get Guiness to certify us as the largest encyclopedia ever created
#Ask someone to nominate us for a Nobel Peace Prize or Literature--or both.  Any member of any national legislature or professor of social science can make a valid peace prize nomination.  Any professor of literature at any university, anywhere can nominate literature prize candidates.  
Lotsofissues 00:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't maintain the myth of good quality -- how can we expect to grow or keep current visitors?  Lotsofissues 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject: Prestige Raise 

message: I think there are enough issues that a mere two grafs in this article won't do it. How about a separate article ... something like John R. Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? Daniel Case 06:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. Maybe if he actually starts throwing lawsuits it'd be worth more discussion, but even then I think we should wait until there's a section on the subject before we consider splitting it off into a whole separate article. Bryan 10:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article now created.  The event is notable, and the contents of the article are all verifiable and cited.  Perhaps much of the discussion should be moved there. --EngineerScotty 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If the incident hadn't become a public controversy, the incident would not be notable nor verifiable, and no such article should exist.  Given that it now is a public controversy--largely due to Seigenthaler's own efforts--it is appropriate for Wikipedia to comment on it.  There, rather than here, is probably a better place for comment. --EngineerScotty 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article on this?

message: *Just a reminder. We need to use this page to collaborate on the content of the article John Seigenthaler Sr., not just to vent our spleens about Seigenthaler, Wikipedia, and each other. (Reference: Wikipedia:Talk pages) Dystopos 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not venting my spleen.  If I was, I assure you my entries would have been far more profane.  Wikipedia has serious problems, and if they're to be fixed they need to be discussed.  This article is simply the nucleus of that discussion right now.  I maintain that the content of this talk page illustrates serious flaws in Wikipedia's structure.  If discussing such is verboten then this encyclopedia is beyond saving.  I really don't want to have to come to that conclusion.  Wikipedia could be great, but we're holding ourselves back.  I'm simply trying to help.  Rogue 9 19:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, and I'm not making accusations -- just reminding us about the policy for talk pages. The discussion, except as it contributes to collaboration on this article, needs to be moved to the Village pump where it can be viewed by a greater sampling of WP editors and can be archived in the context of improving the encyclopedia. Dystopos 19:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder about Use of Talk Pages

message: Why's this page protected? I can't see a consistent pattern of vandalism or edit-warring... I may be thick, but. The Land 18:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, guessed it might have been something like that... The Land 18:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: <Sigh>Why isn't this kind of thing mentioned by Jimbo on-Wiki? Why must we guess through proxies and implications? -Splashtalk 18:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I second Splash's sigh. I was just about to unprotect it since no reason vere given in the summary and there isn't any vandalism/edit-waring in recent history. I also think the reason for the protection is silly. And at least we shuldn't lie about it by having a  that protected tag there. We aren't protecting it becausee of the reason stated in the tag. We're protecting it because Jimbo is on CNN. Maybe we need a new protection template. "This article is protected because Jimbo is on CNN". ;-). But protection without a tag is better, IMO. Did Jimbo ask for the tag to be there as well, or isn't the article much nicer to show off on TV without that ugly template? Shanes 19:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Third sigh.  We should be able to expect to hear about intended changes at Wikipedia:Village pump (news), where they would receive proper attention and discussion.  Did he ever bring up the new policy of forbidding anonymous editors from creating new pages?  Isn't a lesson to be drawn from the Seigenthaler and Curry incidents: there may be too little accountability for individual editors, whose actions may receive inadequate attention?  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The admin have temporarily deleted the article to remove the bad edits. Due to technical difficulties, they're having some problems restoring it, but it should be back up as soon as possible. // Pathoschild 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: For the record, Jimbo is not talking to Seigenthaler, but each is talking to the interviewer, although with some leakage. Seigenthaler, by the way, states that some minor and "inconesequential" accuracies have already cropped up in this new post-fiasco article. When pressed by the interviewer, he said that he and his similarly-named son have been confused in the body of the article a coupla times. (Mind you, if he's so concerned about getting this right, why doesn't he edit it himself?) Bill 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone please put up a link to the CNN page that has the interview transcript into the article's External Links... Jam2k 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CNN Interviews

message: Will you try to find the vandals, and stop them?
: The external vandalism stopped a few days ago.  I doubt there's much hope, however, if Wikipedia is willing to allow vandalism by its own founder, as happened today.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear that that Mr. Wales took any action with this article, or that those actions could be called vandalism. To address the first question, I doubt we would go beyond the normal procedures for dealing with vandalism. (Wikipedia:Vandalism) Dystopos 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding the vandals 

message: I can understand having the page protected during the current controversy, but entirely blanked?  Isn't that going a bit too far?  If we believe in the wikipedia process at all, why not leave a reasonable, corrected, protected version up during this awkward time?  Bikeable 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we really are experiencing technical difficulties, notably undeleting the article after we deleted the bad edits. The admins are scrambling to fix the problem, and it'll be back up as soon as possible. // Pathoschild 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Bikeable, yes, what Pathoschild said.  :-) --Jimbo Wales 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why blanked? 

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

message: In order for Wikipedia to be considered a reliable source for any information, articles should be cited to verifiable publications, authors, etc. IMO, this issue could have been evaded if the the original information on him were cited. The malicious author would not have been able to cite information that he/she has conjured up. Citing would also allow others to research and double check on the facts. In the academic world, citing is what journalists call investigative reporting and fact checking. My two cents. --speedoflight | talk to me 08:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Could Help