Talk:John Seigenthaler/Archive 3

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 [5] 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)
replies: text: Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia policies. Dystopos 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted, the print/CD/DVD version of Wikipedia, which is known as "Version 1.0", is to be painstakingly verified for this kind of thing before it's ever released. If you'd like more information about that project, please see Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. // Pathoschild 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also guessing that lone articles that are not linked to from any other page on Wikipedia would probably not be included on the CD. Turnstep 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. Even assuming they were, they'd be put through the same verification. // Pathoschild 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Wikipedia be distributing in permanent form?

message: Instead of publicly whining about the apparent errors in the section about him, why doesn't Mr. Seigenthaler simply correct the errors?  Isn't that how Wikipedia is designed?  Or maybe Mr. Seigenthaler is just looking for attention.  Regardless, I will be very displeased if he's actions have any consequences on Wikipedia (the registering thing is fine, that's pretty standard these days) or any other internet material.
Maybe someone should explain to him how the internet, and specifically Wikipedia, work...
:Because editing the page would be too easy.  He wanted to create a controversy.  Mperry 00:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. -Splashtalk 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No not exactly, we are looking at a major failure on the part of Wikipedia and all its editors, dismissing it as starting it as a controversy is not true - perhaps Seigenthaler wanted to address a problem within the site, simply editting the page will not draw attention to fundamental errors on Wikipedia; creating national attention and perhaps, and incentive to do something better than what has been done, maybe will fix the problem, or atleast address it holistically (which to an extent, it has done). εγκυκλοπαίδεια*  (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, this is just silly. The guy brought up a legitimate complaint. The article had incorrect information on it, for an extended period of time, several months before he found it. Editing it after the fact may solve that particular problem, but it doesn't address the broader problem of vandalism on stagnant pages in Wikipedia. I don't understand why people are taking cheap shots at him for raising the issue.--Eraboin 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with how he raised the issue. Airing your gripe in a USA Today article and then going onto national news to complain about this reeks of trolling for personal or professional publicity. Mark my words.  Several months from now he'll spin this into a book deal positioning himself as a self-appointed expert that's been on TV. I don't blame him for talking to Jimbo but that was far enough. For what it's worth, I do agree that Wikipedia has issues that need to be addressed. That's the fortunate silver lining to this incedent; We'll identify and fix them.  However, I still feel that Mr. Seigenthaler could have taken a more responsible tact. Mperry 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your words are marked. I don't think he's overreacting. I do believe there's hope, however, and that Wikipedia is not made illegitimate by this. I just don't see the point of sounding defensive about it.--Eraboin 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not fair. He only discovered the incorrect biography after it had already been online for 5 months. Answers.com and Reference.com had mirrors. He's hardly whining, if you watch the CNN interview you'll see he commends Jimbo and Wikipedia on the response he received once he had managed to contact him. Jacoplane 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well.  De facto, there is a hierarchy, isn't there?  Why, suppose my cousin wrote an article about me.  Why wouldn't you keep it?  To those who are written about, do a favor and allow them their due.--VKokielov 06:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the fact remains that he could have spent 5 seconds removing the sentence. Instead, he stirred up a pseudo-storm. -Splashtalk 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous.  A child could tell you why he's doing what he's doing; the man was defamed and removing the sentence does not change that fact.  Further, saying "well edit it yourself" defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia in general; if someone already knows about a subject, why are they looking it up?  True, Seigenthaler knows about his own past, but if someone's using the encyclopedia for research purposes, are they really there for the purpose of editing?  "Do it yourself" is a copout.  How would you like it if you were served burned food at a restaurant and the response was "go back to the kitchen and cook it yourself," then?  Just as you don't go to a restaurant to cook, people looking for information don't come here to write it themselves.  I'm all for Wikipedia's concept, but you're using the features of the system as a shield.  Face it; in this case the system failed, and no, it wasn't Mr. Seigenthaler's fault.  Rogue 9 01:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's critics. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not an adequate answer to the problem - we cannot expect every person on earth of any note to continually check Wikipedia to see if they have been libeled. More so, it is entirely inappropriate for any user (Wales included) to change the content of an article about themselves - it's just stupid - how can anyone ever be truly NPOV about themselves. If they have a point then raise it on a discussion page, but even if we are to ask this of the man, we can hardly expect Mr Seigenthaler to not be offended and to want to make a point about how badly Wikipedia has, on this case, policed itself when an article, for several months, goes towards accusing him of conspiring to murder his friend. Tompagenet 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whining 

message: Looking at the current article for clues to who his enemies might me. "... suspected...." Someone who briefly suspected him, and still remembers; someone in law enforcement? "...lived in Russia..." Someone who thinks living in Russia is a terrible thing? I hope he persists in finding the perp, and then loses the case. It would be pretty funny if the prep turned out to be the FBI. GangofOne 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wondering who wrote the original disputed article (restoral of comment)

message: Because that is extremely broken, in so many different ways. We'll gladly watch the page against vandalism, but we seriously can't keep deleting whatever from page history. Even if it WAS practical Kim Bruning 06:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why the ceremony.  He asks to remove the page history -- remove it.  Because he's bigger, first;  and because he isn't wrong, second.  No one need be the martyr.  --VKokielov 06:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Kim Bruning. What history cleaning is next? George W. Bush? He's sure powerful enough to force the Foundation's hand if some journalist is. -Splashtalk 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should not be editing page histories like this 

message: Take a look at this article published in The Register that was published today - Who owns your Wikipedia Bio?...
It really hurts you, if you are a fan of Wikipedia and it's policies... All this just because some anonymous idiot vandalized a page that wasn't even noticed till a week ago... 
Don't get me wrong people. It's just that I'm sooo irritated to see our community being accused like this. These people don't even appreciate the hard work we put in, and use some one or two incidents to defame the entire lot of users... Jam2k 07:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take this too hard.  The Register has always been extremely derisive of Wikipedia.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 08:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed something very funny today... Though The Register seems to be criticizing wikipedia like this, it itself seems to link to wikipedia for a few terms... talk about irony!Jam2k 08:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's critics. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in The Register 

message: For one thing, I think this whole "controversy" is being blown wildly out of proportion. Of course, there are some people who just can't stand the principles behind Wikipedia, so they latch on to whatever they can to criticize it. They just do not have any faith in the ability of ordinary people working together to produce something great like this. It's pure contempt. This business of scrambling to defend Wikipedia, as if we've got to save our skins, isn't doing us any good, either. There's a system here. To an overwhelming degree, it works, and it has produced this magnificent resource, but of course it also has a few inherent flaws. One of them is highlighted by this incident. But we should shrug it off—we are improving things every day, making things more researched and verifiable, and this article itself is actually benefiting from the attention it's getting. My idea is, why not set a goal to make this a featured article? Make it a shining example of Wikipedia research and neutrality. That's taking lemons and making lemonade. Everyking 08:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's principles. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two thoughts

message: Wikipedia hits #30
Lotsofissues 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice to see... with all this recent publicity that we got, it's bound to rise :-). Too bad the other language sites don't get much attention (English version is visited 63% of the time)... Jam2k 08:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please visit the Village pump for general discussion about Wikipedia's popularity. The Talk Page is for collaboration on this article. Dystopos 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa:Wikipedia hits traffic record again 

message: I think it probably does, especially as it seems to have led to a rule change on the Wiki. I also think the press coverage (apoplectic NYTimes, etc.) deserves a bit more space.
:The article is already there, 82.152.179.2. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Discuss the merit of a seperate article for the whole issue in it's Afd page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy
::The article has cleared the AFD (the result was overwhelming keep).  Perhaps much of the content on this page concerning the controversy should be moved there, so that this article can be on Seigenthaler, and not on the controversy (which is a very small part of his public life)? --EngineerScotty 23:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the controversy merit it's own article? 

message: I see that there is a sentence at the bottom suggesting that this incident (him raising hell -no judgement implied- rather than editing the sentence) tells us about the gap between traditional media and the new wiki-world. Does it not also tell us something about the prominence and trustworthiness of wiki in people's eyes, that he thought it so terrible? If someone had written this, or anything unpleasant or untrue about him on a random page, nobody would pay attention. That it was considered serious shows that wiki is being considered in the realm of the traditional media and encyclopedias. Even as they attack us, they praise us.
15:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What it tells us