Talk:Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident/Archive 2

message: Wikipedia articles should always be considered developmental versions as opposed to Wikipedia:Stable versions. -- Zondor 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Stable versions]] 

message: :Seigenthaler's comments, particularly his USA Today op-ed, have been controversial. When USA Today later published a number of personal letters  responding to the op-ed, some accused Seigenthaler of unnecessarily attacking an "entire community based solely on the misconduct of a single member." Others commended Siegenthaler for exposing what they considered a "deeply flawed" system of unedited publication.
Where do these quotes come from? I can't find either comment on the USA Today letters page.
chocolateboy 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seigenthaler's comments, particularly his USA Today op-ed, have been controversial. When USA Today later published a number of personal letters  responding to the op-ed, some accused Seigenthaler of unnecessarily attacking an "entire community based solely on the misconduct of a single member." Others have attacked Seigenthaler's perceived ignorance of Wikipedia's processes, citing his concerns over the potential vandalism of congressional nominees' biographies, and contending that such serious inaccuracies would be removed much more quickly if they appeared in a more prominent article, or one with more contemporary relevance. Others commended Seigenthaler for exposing what they considered a "deeply flawed" system of unedited publication.
chocolateboy 05:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: USA Today

message: Some of the articles state that, as a result of this controversy, Wikipedia has changed its policy to allow new articles to be created only by logged-in users with accounts.  Is this correct?  If so, why is it not mentioned in the article?  Badagnani 09:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) the policy change had been brewing for some while (I find traces of it in August, on the Village Pump I believe, although I can't remember), it seems merely to have been useful public relations to time it in response to this; (2) the policy change affects only new articles (and not even in all namespaces, Talk being excluded for sure, maybe others) and wouldn't have made a whit of difference in this case, which involved edits to an existing article. In order to prevent further, more serious, libels -- Mr. Seigenthaler has been a pretty good sport about this, but the next guy might not be -- what is needed is to require traceable registration for all edits, just like 90% of the other bulletin boards and things out there. Bill 12:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is mentioned in the article in the "reaction" section. The matter had been discussed in august, and often before -- it is first on the Perrennial Proposals section of the village pump, but the overwhelming consensus, in my view, right up until mid Nov, was "intersting idea, might have some benefits, will never happen". I might add that I oppose the change, and would prefer to return to the status quo. But if we do require regiustration for all edits, it should indeed be a tracable registration, or there is no point to the exercise, IMO. I would add that if we do this, the new pages and recent changes lists ought to show a column for number of contributuions, or some similar statistic, to restore the feature that IP contributions got extra scrutiny from patrollers. DES (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Wikipedia policy 

message: The so-called "explanation" and "apology" for the controversy by Chase seems suspect to me for a variety of reasons:
* If you were going to play a joke on a co-worker, why do it on a website where he was unlikely to visit?  
* It seems highly unlikely and coincidental that his co-worker's name just happened to be "John Seigenthaler, Sr." and that he mentions the Kennedy assassinations in the fake article, when the real Seigenthaler worked with the Kennedys... 
* It also seems very odd that both Chase and Seigenthaler have ties to Nashville ... too much of a coincidence.  
I think Chase really wanted to slam Seigenthaler for some reason, and now he's admitting that he did it, but he lacks the courage of his convictions to say why, and instead made up some bogus false reason.  Given that he's published libelous material, the possibility of him lying about this whole thing seems much more likely than his excuse of "I was just punking a co-worker."  Ashton Kutcher, he ain't.  
--Gothhenge 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't buy it. 

message: What Mr. Seigenthaler says should be carefully considered. It is not funny when your good name gets muddied falsely. It is also easy to think that when that happens to you, everyone (in this case Wikipedians) has bad intentions. As far as reverting this sort of thing, it is very difficult to know what the truth is, if you don't know the facts. However, if it is unreferenced, it could be unreliable. This is the key!
Personally, I think that if any statement is made in an article, and it is negative, and it is unreferenced, it should be removed "sofort". The main reason is that it causes great hurt to the person to whom these statements are being directed. It is just not fair. I also do not like any sort of character assassination, and have had a few disagreements with other editors about this in the past.
Can we not say more good things about people, and less bad? It makes for a much more pleasant read, and makes the world a better place. Wallie 13:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Referenced Material

message: "There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility'", The Register (UK)
Isn't that libel? ilya 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement obviously doesn't mean that Wikipedia literally lacks an entry titled "moral responsibility". It's like pointing to a tough athlete and saying "defeat isn't even in his vocabulary"--it's just a figure of speech. Ken Arromdee 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it means "Wikipedia lacks moral responsibility" or something like that in a very clear way. So, I agree, it's not about wrong fact. Instead it's about consciously defamating, imho. ilya 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: this clearly implies that... my articles are trashy and badly written
Your articles? chocolateboy 11:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Under U.S. law, expressions of opinion aren't actionable as defamation.  Suppose someone dispenses with the implications and says expressly, "User:JamesMLane has created several Wikipedia articles.  All of them are trashy and badly written.  They demonstrate that their author has no sense of moral responsibility."  I have no cause of action.  The first sentence relates to a matter of fact, but it's true; the second and third sentences are opinion.  Thus, a more accurate version of the note at the bottom of an edit page would be: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others or criticized unfairly by miscellaneous hooligans, know-nothings, and publicity hounds, do not submit it." JamesMLane 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Moral responsibility]] 

message: The Chicago Tribune is now covering the controversy, in its 15 December 2005 edition. It's a two page article, registration is likely required (mine is saved as a cookie, so I couldn't tell you for sure). http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512150209dec15,1,7151266.column?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
--JohnDBuell 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. That's a pretty good article, really. It makes clear the inherent problems with wikipedia without bashing it. It also makes the basic point that I've always made about the project: when it's good, it's very very good, and when it's bad it's horrid. The biggest problem, as far as I can tell, is that wikipedia has bitten off more than it can chew, and this will continue to worsen as editors strive to have articles an anything and everything that there is some sort of potentially somewhat-verifiable information on. He also makes some pretty good points about accountability. The only change that came about as a result (or coincidentally contemporarily) was pretty minor, and is likely only to decrease the amount of "Jason is a retard" entries that we get, which are bad, but are deleted quickly anyway, and, never being searched for, are hardly ever seen. I wonder if more change will come.-R. fiend 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicago Tribune article

message: Being rather new to Wikipedia, I feel reluctant to intervene in this extensive discussion, but I have nowhere seen a suggestion that any living subject of a biography should, as a matter of common courtesy, be notified of its existence, if not before then immediately after it's first posted.
Thereafter, there's nothing to prevent them from keeping track of changes by using some such service as http://www.watchthatpage.com/, which I personally find very useful. It would be even better if they could, if they requested it, be notified of changes by email, if that's not considered too great a burden. MikeSy 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but how do you achieve that immensely complex task? and who is responsible for doing so? You could argue that trying to find contact details for people in wikipedia articles is much more of an invasion of privacy. Many of the people who have articles live outside the US, and some come from countries from which wikipedia may not have editors, and many article subjects don't speak English. Trying to contact the famous subjects would itself be a huge challenge. So this is not a practical proposition, especially as wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. I would personally argue that it is the responsibility of any individual to monitor where they are appearing on the internet, SqueakBox 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess to still being rather naïve regarding the rate at which autobiographies of living persons are added, but I have seen that the criteria for inclusion use the word 'notable'. Nor do I know much about who might be editing an entry. I am however confident that subjects are consulted for at least some publications such as Who's Who, if not for Britannica. And I acknowledge that the difficulty of contacting Osama bin Laden might be considerable. Which was why I said 'Common courtesy'. Moreover, many subjects are likely to have press agencies looking out for them (come to think of it, that might well be the case in the present instance). But the fact remains that not everyone is yet internet connected, and of those that are, there are still many who are not Wikipedia-aware. For example, I have been using email since one had to route messages through gateways, and Wikipedia came to my notice only a few months ago. Subsequently, I was surprised to see a (stub)biography for a friend and colleague, also a long standing internet user, who had been unaware of its existence until someone else has pointed it out to him. It therefore remains my opinion that ensuring the subject is aware should be regarded as a matter of common courtesy - no more, but no less. MikeSy 16:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To notify everyone who has an autobiography written is impractical and who would do it anyway? It is better to ensure as much as possible that everything is accurate, and referenced with a RELIABLE REFERENCE. I do not believe that Wikipedia is anywhere near this stage yet. If anyone feels their autobiography is wrong however, she/he should complain to Wikipedia officials, who will hopefully treat the matter VERY SERIOUSLY. Each such complaint should also shore up the process so that the encyclopedia is subject to continuous improvement. Wallie 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common courtesy? 

message: I've not tracked this as well as many of the other editors.  I believe a timeline that starts with the day that the hoax was first entered and ends with the day it was written up in the New York Times would be great help in understanding what happened. patsw 20:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: a timeline of the events 

message: I have another request for an editor familiar with the facts and the media coverage.  For each article or online account where there is a significant error, ommission, or distortion, could the media covergage be identified and the problem explained in the controversy article here.
I believe that people might pick up A little sleuthing unmasks writer of Wikipedia prank  and see that the New York Times has not published a correction. and assume that it was free of significant errors )and perhaps it was). patsw 01:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: a summary of inaccuracies in media accounts 

message: While this is true, it is a little misleading in the sense that the problematical text itself can, of course be viewed by anyone right here in this article, where it is quoted. I raised this point above and was shot down, but I still feel that this article has a certain subtle flavor of "So-and-so bays at the moon..." "I DO NOT! TAKE IT BACK!" "Hey, everyone, so-and-so does NOT bay at the moon!"
Just venting. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As a result, the unredacted versions of the article can be viewed only by Wikipedia administrators." 

message: The article on Brian Chase contains nothing but information that is already listed in this article. Brian Chase is not notable for any reason other than this controversy. I would like to merge the Brian Chase article with this one and then redirect Brian Chase here. Agree, disagree? Kaldari 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's perfectly sensible.  But good luck making it happen.  For some bizarre reason, people have been screaming about censorship when this gets merged.  There's some discussion on Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) about it.  Apparently people have very strong feelings.  The last time I merged this (a few days ago) I was warned about "vandalism" on my talk page. Friday (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I still can't say I understand your reasoning on why not to merge it.  I understand that he's "notable".  But the "notable" thing he did was cause the controversy, which we already have an article about.  We have nothing on him except his role in the controversy, which to me means we need one article, not two.  What we've got now is redundant.   Friday (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you get it? By having this information in one place instead of two, and having it more succinctly stated and complete, with a clear redirect, you are censoring everyone who contributes to wikipedia and stifling the flow of information, making you, well, nothing better than a common Nazi. There I said it. -R. fiend 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, it was IMO more of a "no consensus" than anything, but I don't see that this matters.  The article is not being deleted.  I was hoping for a reason related to content and making a good encyclopedia, not a reason related to a certain interpretation of the rules.  Since I still have yet to hear any valid reason why Chase is better off in his own article, I'll try the redirect again.  Friday (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Brian Chase with this article 

message: Insert  and, if needed,  tags to any articles that do not cite sources. Shawnc 23:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you would regulate all the stubs which do not have sources? It is a good idea, but it is not practical. --The1exile 12:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some citation must be provided for each article if Wikipedia is to become reputable or at least more reliable. Without sources, this project is arguably but a rumor mill or POV depository. Shawnc 14:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: One can also use  after any unsourced statements. Shawnc 14:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to all Wikipedia users 

message: Interesting paralells with this controversy:
"The Hillsdale Daily News retracts a bogus item published in its Saturday, Dec. 17, News of Record. The item listed two men from Waldron as having obtained a marriage license from Hillsdale County. The information was fabricated and inserted as a prank into the news computer system by a member of the Daily News staff, who has been fired. The staff member said he did not intend for the prank to be published and apologized to the two men."  Wonder how often this happens annually? Jokestress 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillsdale Daily News prank 

message: For anyone interested, there is a vote at Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) on merging that article with this one. -R. fiend 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Wouldn't it be really, really funny if a year from now it turned out somebody discovered John Seigenthaler actually WAS involved in the assassination? And all this was just a way of the old guy trying to defend himself?
:Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day, I guess. -R. fiend 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only been 42 years, so the truth should come out any day now. Gamaliel 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a thought

message: The OfficialWire, a website of Greg Lloyd Smith, stated that the inaccurate statement about Seigenthaler "was eventually removed by Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, but only after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler."   This gave me the impression that Seigenthaler had spent four months trying to delete the statement but finding all his edits reverted.  That wasn't consistent with what I thought I'd read about the incident, so I came here to get the details.  I'm relieved to see that OfficialWire's story wasn't accurate.  JamesMLane 10:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This "story" seems to be a hoax from the people who brought you QuakeAID. Gamaliel 18:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia critic misrepresents the Seigenthaler affair 

message: Wicked truths about Wikipedia show weakness of online encyclopedia: Eric Newton is upset that his IP address and copyvio contribution isn't in the history.  The fact that his role is described in the article apparently doesn't count.  I appreciate that the media is more aware of Wikipedia procedures, and some are beginning to stop criticizing us for being what we never claimed to be, but this seems a little excessive. - BanyanTree 15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those wondering about the 19 December 2005 conversation between Mr. Newton and  BrokenSegue can find it at User talk:24.48.154.89. Jokestress 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Newton is mad that his IP address isn't shown in the history 

message: There's a suggested merge tag over at Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) directing the discussion to here.  We've got no info on Chase other than his involvement in this controvery, and this article already covers the relevant facts (putting them in the proper context of the controversy).  I've already said this over there, but to me the merge is an obviously good idea.  In fact, since the merge is already done, I'd be inclined to go ahead and turn that article into a redirect, if it weren't for the fact that I did it a couple times in weeks past and it was reverted.  There are some folks who are rabidly opposed to such a merge, so I was curious what the people who watch this article think.  Friday (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge. Gflores Talk 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I too support a merge. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As before, I also support such a merge. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the merge is already done, so if anyone's brave enough to make the redirect, be my guest. Friday (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually there's alot or support for a redirect, it's just not as organized as the keep separate group. -R. fiend 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's strange that the editors on the two pages have such opposing points of view.  I've raised this question on the other talk page and results have not been encouraging.  I fully realize that, in the past, there hasn't been a consensus for the merge among the editors who talked about it.  What I was trying to find out was, among the editors who still care about it today, is there consensus for a merge?  If you disagree with the merge, feel free to explain why.  So far everyone here has been in favor except Sam, and I don't see that you've given a reason why a merge is a bad idea.  Friday (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merge suggestion 

message: I also put this on the talk page for the Eric Newton article, but just so there is some clarity about Newton's involvement, he has complained about Wikipedia:
:"They say anyone can edit it. That is not true. I couldn't."  
It would have been more accurate to say he could and did edit it, but all his edits prior to that article were in violation of Wikipedia policies. His first violation involved copyright infringement. He lifted a copyrighted bio verbatim from the Freedom Forum.
The Freedom Forum bio of Seigenthaler  links to his official biography on the First Amendment Center site.  That site has a very clear copyright policy:
:"Copyright the First Amendment Center. The text and images on this Web site are copyrighted and may not be reposted, republished, copied or reproduced without permission. [...] Although you cannot copy the text and repost or reproduce it elsewhere, you may link to any page on this site without asking permission." 
Newton (or someone claiming to be him) then returned in December and added edits stating Newton was the anonymous editor who had violated copyright, though there was no published source for this claim. This is another Wikipedia violation, this time against the No Original Research policy. Now that he has published the January 2006 Sun-Sentinel piece quoted above, there's a verifiable source, and Newton's name can be included.
Newton and like-minded journalists are all up in arms about Wikipedia, but I am sure they've run the occasional "we regret the error" retraction. Pranks can happen at "professional" newspapers, in clear violations of their policies.  Journalists and Wikipedians are not perfect, but there are policies in place to reduce pranks and errors.
Bottom line: in attempting to fix one violation, Newton violated several other Wikipedia policies, and then he complained about it in print. Just wanted to expand here on what should be a fairly minor point in the article. Jokestress 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Newton violated multiple Wikipedia policies 

message: Is this controversy over, or just beginning? Also, do you think it will seriously affect the outcome of Wikipedia's future?
:It's just beginning - but I don't mean that pessimisticly.  I mean that as Wikipedia is just beginning.  And yes, it will serioulsy affect Wikipedia's future.  It already has.  And again, I mean that positively: Wikipedia:Stable versions. Kevin Baastalk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This controversy was an overblown, flash in the pan story that's already long forgotten by the rest of the world.  And R. fiend is right, there's probably more of this waiting to happen.  It's a very good reason for all editors to be concerned about verifiability.  If we report what the NY Times says and they were wrong, they get the heat, not us.  Friday (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this just the beginning? 

message: I didn't reply on the wikipedia review board; this was pretty obvious from looking at it don't you think?--Jimbo Wales 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed mention of me 

message: Why no table of contents? - RoyBoy 800 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTOC? 

message: The Seigenthaler controversy smells to me like a deliberate, manufactured attempt by elites to discredit Wikipedia, as part of a more general anti-democratic crackdown.  According to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, "it was Seigenthaler himself that attacked Congress for passing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which protects ISPs and web sites from being held legally responsible for disseminating content provided by their customers and users."  I submit that Seigenthaler's shown a motive to want to set Wikipedia up, thus demonstrating a supposed need for internet 'reform'.  I can't take him seriously when he says, "Every politician is going to find himself or herself subjected to the same sort of outrageous commentary that hit me, and hits others. I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result of that."  Yes, and it will be Seigenthaler himself out front pushing for that 'reform'.  And what's the connection between Seigenthaler and the ostensible 'vandal', Brian Chase?  If elites didn't manufacture this scandal out of whole cloth, then they've certainly cynically exploited it to further the cause of repression of the public.  I think democracy scares those with privilege, and Wikipedia is democracy's poster-child.
24.147.110.97 07:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Under Attack by Fascist Elites 

message: Make every anon a sysop. That way anarchy will occur and, due to the Seigenthaler Effect, wikipedia will have ten billion articles in several weeks. --SeanMcG 08:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPIPHANY 

message: I suggest this should go:
:Since many people read Seigenthaler's op-ed, and few people responded to the original article, some [citation needed] Wikipedia contributors (known as Wikipedians) questioned his reluctance to simply correct the page. Other contributors pointed out the existence of an autobiography guideline on Wikipedia which is often interpreted to mean that users may not edit pages about themselves, and still others noted that even if he corrected the page, he would have to keep track of it for the rest of his life to be sure that inaccuracies were not added and compared opting-out of spam to the demand that Seigenthaler fix the inaccuracies himself.
First it's unsourced.  Second, even if sources are found, the wording is entirely wrong, because it's meaningless to talk of Wikipedians feel in general.  If some Wikipedian said something, that was noted in reliable media, than quote them, but don't summarize, or paraphrase. --Rob 15:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed text removal 

message: It should be stated if Victor S. Johnson, Jr. even knew what wikipedia was.--Greasysteve13 12:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, okay. But I was talking about Victor S. Johnson, Jr.'s discovery on John Seigenthaler Sr. article not his own.--Greasysteve13 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand the dude was born 100 years ago.--Greasysteve13 07:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  --  Zanimum 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In case everyone forgot, people are essentially never supposed to edit articles about themselves or their companies, families, etc.  in the first place. The only real exception to this is correcting minor clerical errors (like dates) and grammar.  Quoted directly from WP:NOT:   Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so."  Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.   Expecting someone to police an article about themself is neither legally viable, nor practical.  ("They could have corrected it" will not stop any legitimate libel suit.) --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why didn't [[Victor S. Johnson, Jr.]] just delete the garbage on [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] page? 

message: Either as "Wikipedia Publicist of the Year" for pushing Wikipedia firmly into the mainstream and creating a huge boom in traffic, or as "Incompetent of the Year" for achieving the opposite of what he set out to do. 62.31.55.223 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's just stupid. And what in fact did he "set out to do"? He set out to remove the libel, and point out that Wikipedia can really not be too reliable some of the time. This resulted in the semi-protect feature and increased referencing standards, both of which have become integral and natural to the community. While people always wanted these standards in place, this was the kick in the butt, albeit an embarassing kick, that we need to kick things in gear.  --  Zanimum 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Wikipedia:Civility and also look up irony in a dictionary. Nonomy 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: He deserves an award

message: <removed link to attack site>Some conspiracy theorists think that Seigenthaler actually masterminded the Kennedy assassination and sent men in black to jimbo wales to force him to remove it.  Can it be listed? DyslexicEditor 09:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. According to the site, Christians can be defined as "A zealous Christ fanboy." They're just a unfunny parody site, end of story. Thus, if they're joking, then no one really thinks this.  --  Zanimum 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fanboy is a new way of putting worship.  I noticed the article after seeing that their 9/11 article shares the same conspiracy stuff as some articles here... well see this.  DyslexicEditor 02:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable? 

message: As someone who is both new to and very enthusiastic about Wikipedia, I've given some thought to the question of what this site is good for. 
My thinking is, Wikipedia is brilliant for learning information, call it hard knowledge of a particular subject. Wikipedia, however, is a complete disaster for any subject, topic or issue that is both (a) controversial, and (b) part of the general public discourse. 
By the very nature of the site, Wikipedians naturally tend to contribute to articles about things they are enthusiastic about. Enthusiasm and time breeds knowledge. Therefore, an astronomer, say, will not write an article about plumbing—he or she will write about the stars, which is a wonderful thing for the rest of us. The astronomer's natural enthusiasm for the subject matter will infuse the article, making it not only informed but also—and just as importantly—interesting to us non-astronomers. Clearly, there is an enormous difference in the prose style of someone who is writing something they are passionate about, and the style of someone who is writing under duress. This difference, subtle and hard to pin down though it may be, clearly affects a reader's response to the material. A passionate specialist will in all likelihood write an interesting, easily understood article about the most arcane topics of the field, making even the minutiae interesting to the non-specialist. 
Furthermore, and this is key to understanding the attractiveness of Wikipedia and other sites like it, a knowledgeable, enthusiastic specialist will have no reason to supply inaccurate hard knowledge of a particular subject. Enthusiasm breeds respect—respect automatically breeds care and rigor. 
However, by the same token, an enthusiastic, knowledgeable, rigorous astronomer will also be an enthusiastic sports fan, a knowledgeable political supporter, a rigorous religious (or anti-religious) adherent, et cetera. That knowledgeable specialist will have equally passionate views on a whole host of subjects outside their field of expertise—fields that are part of the general discourse and at the same time incredibly controversial. 
This is where Wikipedia fails. 
Everyone has opinions concerning issues of the general discourse: Which is the "best" sports team, which political view is "right", which religion is "true". Some of these issues of the general discourse are trivial, and rarely beget controvery; for instance, which is the "best" basketball team, the Knicks or the Lakers? Who knows? Who cares? 
However, other issues of the general discourse are extraordinarily controversial—for instance, abortion, immigration, Iraq, to name only three, and only in passing. 
When an issue is at once controversial and part of the general discourse, it is unavoidable that passions will rise and Wikipedians will flex their fingers and tap away at their keyboards. When that happens, when controversy meets up with issues in the public discourse, articles will degenerate into flame wars, as I discovered when perusing the article on the DaVinci Code: Wikipedia administrators had to start banning people because of the vandalism going on. And that was just over a silly novel. 
Thus my feeling: Wikipedia is a wonderful tool to quickly discover new and exciting things beyond one's sphere of knowledge. But for controversial subjects in the general discourse, it is a disaster. 
The question then, of course, becomes, How do we delineate between the two?
The answer is, We don't. 
Certainly astronomy and abortion are the two extremes of this dichotomy—the one specialised and non-controversial, hard-knowledge in the best sense; the other affecting everyone and completely fraught with controversy, soft-opinion no matter what arguments and evidence is deployed. But the gray area in between is what concerns us. That gray area is not only the place where frauds are committed—it is also where inaccuracies, deliberate or not, come into play. 
Clearly, Wikipedia wants to avoid inaccuracies. But considering the amount of information that is accumulating, it is impossible for some central system or board of editors to police the whole site. As a practical problem, no board or central system would have the time or the expertise to make valid judgements. 
Therefore, the best way to avoid inaccuracies and frauds is by self-policing. On its face, this seems like such a soft option, but I see no other way around the problem. Banning specific topics or subjects from Wikipedia would go precisely against the whole spirit of the enterprise. Leaving articles alone and accepting any foolishness by any contributor as "a matter of opinion" or "a valid point of view" is equally wrong—the assembling of hard-knowledge which is so useful would degenerate into a collection of soft-opinions that would serve no purpose aside from ego-gratification. 
Self-policing, though imperfect, is probably the only way to go. It is also potentially very reliable so long as the Wikipedia system allows the edits but also allows people to compare the current version with previous versions. If previous versions are wiped from the system, or if there isn't a simple, immediate way to compare the current version of an article with a previous version, then the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia's hard-knowledge base will be questioned. People have to see the effects of the self-policing, for that policing to earn our respect. 
Some thoughts, probably random and foolish, from a new, enthusiastic user.
:I actually find that the political articles that I run into -- even the heavily contested articles such as the Middle East ones -- tend to be pretty high in quality.  Also, entire technical areas have low quality, such as computer graphics when I last glanced through it.  Yet other areas have higher quality: math isn't really formal enough, but Wikipedia tends to be either growing towards or even surpassing MathWorld on some subjects; to me, it looks like there's real potential there.  I was impressed by the general informativeness and readability of Mandelbrot set, which one would expect to be a complete "hobbyist topic," and edited into "chaos."  Yet thermodynamics and chemical engineering had almost no articles, when I looked at them a year ago.  There are still only three sentences on LPCVD reactors.  I guess what I'm saying is that I haven't gotten the same impression as you -- what I've found is that there are hot spots and cold spots in terms of amount of content and quality, and these "spots" are dependent on the category.  My theory is that the amount of content has to get over some threshold to attract enough contributors to make a difference.  I don't know what causes good or bad quality on the social scale.  Then again, I have highly idiosyncratic ways of going about things, and I'm interested in a wide range of very specific topics, so I wouldn't say you or I are "wrong," just a different perspective. - Connelly 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Wikipedia is good for 

message: It just doesn't make sense!--143.92.1.33 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would would someone claim responsibility? 

message: Folks: Unless there is a compelling reason, please always following chronology in a monotonic fashion. We are not telling an exciting story for the suspense value: we are reporting the truth in the order it happened. -- 67.121.112.5 10:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrono order please 

message: This article was not in chrono order, did not report the story clearly, and contained a lot of editorializing (including a big chunk of generic wikiactivism-cruft)
Hopefully most of these are now fixed.  FT2 (Talk | email) 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article edits 

message: It claims here that wikipedia has 3.8 million articles. This sounds really wrong, and I'm changing it to 1.27 million, as per the front page. --Gunny01 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that number included articles in languages other than English?  Now there's 4.5 million international articles though, as of the beginning of July.  (That sentence should reference only English articles though.)  —AySz88\^-^ 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.8 Million Articles? 

message: This sentence:
:The scientific journal Nature published a study in December, 2005, in which Wikipedia was found to contain a third again as many errors as the Encyclopædia Britannica in scientific articles.
Doesn't make sense. Third again? Do they mean third as many or something else? - DNewhall 23:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ~1.32 times as many. 162 in Wikipedia vs. 123 in Britannica. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't make sense to me either. Propound 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Misleading. I've edited to remove the interpretation, and included the actual numbers. Blueapples 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence needs clarification 

message: It seems that one of the external links (the one marked as "Seigenthaler and Wikipedia – Lessons and Questions") does not exist anymore. I don't know if this is permanent or temporary, however. Should it be taken off, or is there somewhere else it can be found? supreme_geek_overlord 15:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm marking the link as inactive for the time being. — supreme_geek_overlord 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I presume this isn't the same thing:  Seigenthaler and Wikipedia: A Case Study on the Veracity of the "Wiki" concept?  --  Zanimum 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalism.org Article Not Found