What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

by **banned** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:13 am

I'll check it out. The fruits of my 53 years on the planet have left me with the answer to why people let themselves be tyrannized over: most people are gutless sacks of chickenshit tied in the middle with a belt. I first noticed that at age 4 when I couldn't figure out why my new best friend let her two older sisters boss her around and I most recently noticed it at 4:30 today when a friend whose eyesight is half gone from diabetic retinopathy kept saying she was afraid to ask her doctor to certify her for temporary state disability while she recovers. She's not safe to walk the streets, she can't drive, and when she goes on job interviews and pulls out the magnifying glass to fill out the application she can tell she's lost the job already. But because her doctor she's paid 4 grand to to do laser surgery on her eyes told her she isn't 'blind' she's afraid to ask him to fill out the papers. I've never understood it. I've spent most of my life standing up for myself and other people and being hammered down--and fighting back and winning more than I've lost. I used to try to do spine transplants on people, I've mostly given up but I spent 20 minutes standing in what passes in California for 'the cold' trying to get through to my friend that SHE CANNOT WORK and in fact SHE CANNOT EVEN LOOK FOR WORK therefor she IS disabled and if her doctor won't write that on a frickin' form she needs to fire his ass and get another doctor. If everything ends up on a bell shaped curve, so does 'resistance to illegitimate authority' which means 75% of the populace automatically and per se is not capable of it. And to be fair, that may be evolutionarily a Good Thing, because I am the first to admit that I'm temperamentally resistant to ANY authority--I quit Brownies because it was too regimented, the way I carried on you'd have thought my mom had signed me up for Hitlerjugend. If 75% of the populace habitually 'questioned authority' as often as I do, society would have trouble functioning <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> .

by **Sepka** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:05 am

I'd suggest that the only possible outcome to this is the strengthening of the wiki system, and the improvement of its credibility. Wikis have the reputation of good places to go to do initial research on a subject, but not places to get authoritative information. There are two reasons for this: people with an ax to grind represent controversial opinions as though they were widely accepted; and people commit vandalism. Wikipedia is now going to take concrete steps to prevent vandalism, rather than be content with cleaning it up afterward. If this represents some sort of covert attempt to ruin the credibility of political bloggery by association, then it's a remarkably ill-conceived one. The immediate effect of what's happened is to make people aware of the wiki's existence, make people aware that editorial standards are being strengthened, and to give people a site name - wikipedia - to search on. A few minutes poking through wikipedia is going to convince most people that the majority of the site presents reliable information. If I wanted to trash the credibility of political blogs, I'd set one up, present largely true inside information for some period of time until I had at least one major broadcast or print journalist hooked, then lead them astray in some spectacular fashion. For all we know, that sort of thing may well be happening, but a single instance of vandalism in a wiki isn't it. So far as CNN disparaging online resources, this is in line with what the print and broadcast media have been saying about blogs for the past year or so. CNN, like any advertising-supported media, has a vested interest in persuading viewers that they're the best source for news. CNN's inclination to make this a major story stems from the same impulses that drove the movie studios to attack television in the 50s. They lack the imagination to see the new media doing anything but making them obsolete, so they grasp at anything that might discredit it, however improbable. I'd be frankly amazed if most TV reporters could tell you the difference between a blog, a wiki, and a message board. Their behaviour is better understood as the result of confusion and fear rather than as the expression of a calculated plot. -Sepka the Space Weasel Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sepka>Sepka</A> at: 12/6/05 6:12 am

by **Sweejak** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:28 pm

Born Against. LOL I have those tenedencies myself.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by **Dreams End** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:22 pm

Interesting you all picked up on this, as I live in Nashville. First, about Wikipedia. Seems like an awfully easy "solution" if one is needed would to simply have a "not yet reviewed" tag automatically placed on new user edits. The information stays until someone has a look that it meets the standards (now what the STANDARDS are is another question...). If I go to the site and see some unexpected piece of news about somebody and I see that "not yet reviewed" tag, it tells me that it's a new edit and no one else in the foodchain has yet had a look. I know they have had long involved discussions on certain topics as to how best to edit them that can go on for days and days. Sometimes I find these when I'm googling for something. I always did wonder how they resolve issues. If proldic and rdr were both trying to edit an article on the Soviet Union, it would be quite a challenge to mediate. Now, as to Seigenthaler. I've met him...and I know some of his family. I grew up watching John Jr. as a local TV reporter. There are a lot of Seigenthalers in Nashville. I knew his brother's kids when I was growing up. Their father, Tom Seigenthaler was the man who started the PR firm (not John, as the Wikipedia article suggested and not MPF...another one firm here in Nashville.) Tom lived in Belle Beade, the richest, "aristocratic" section of Nashville. And yet, he was the only one in that area to vote for Jesse Jackson in 1984. Go figure. The rest of his family, especially the "Strobels", another part of the family line, are all nice, liberal activist types for the most part. One of them has a community service award named after her and another is a Catholic priest who is a well known activist. So, not that liberals can't be part of such shenanigans, but it's a perspective most of the family shares. John has a local show here about books. He also started the First Amendment center that does, basically puff pieces, on "important" thinkers and cultural icons (I think Art Garfunkel was on there once.) Interviewing Woodward does not seem like a red flag to me, as so many others also interview the man. Woodward's robotic presentation just keeps 'em coming, I guess. So, we know that Woodward has been pushed out into this public role, but you can't say who is part of the pushing and who interviews him because they believe the hype. Naturally, someone so associated with the "first amendment" would be interested in this famous reporter and "breaker" of the Watergate story. John was also a Justice Department aid under Kennedy, and as such got the Alabama governor to allow the 'freedom rides' to begin and there's also a story about him rescuing an African-American during some anti-black violence spawned during the freedom rides. I don't remember the whole story. And, I think assuming that the "bridge jumper" was MKUltra might be reaching a bit. So, pretty good politics and a really nice family. And the article did have some serious errors. However, I do see him as part of the liberal establishment...or the liberal "flavor" of the establishment. Involved in the Kennedy Justice Department and then with RFK's re-election campaign, I've never seen any allegation that he was involved in either plot. That would be some serious deep cover as he was a reporter in Nashville for years and years. Not exactly a hotbed posting for CIA assassination collaborators. (Do we count against him the fact that his family descends from Germans?) I don't much care for USA Today, the national paper he co-started. The paper comes out of Virginia and is owned by Gannett who owns a TON of other newspapers in the US and also in England and also some TV stations. So, media consolidation alone is an issue here. They also pushed the whole "polling" aspect to new "highs" (lows.) And they seriously have dumbed down the news. That said, I don't know of any evidence that USA Today is any more of a "Mockingbird" type outfit than any of the other large, corporate media. I spent some time Googling and haven't found much to make me think that Seigenthaler is other than what he purports to be. A liberal. I have criticisms of liberals, but that is not what this is about. The other question underlying all this, is whether that Wikipedia story was planted so that this media "attack" could come about. I don't know. In the article I saw in our local paper (if it's not in the one linked here) he said a colleague or friend alerted him to the posting. But yes, his "hey, what's this whole Wikipedia thing" does ring a bit false as someone in his business would have hit Wikipedia entries hundreds of times in the course of daily research. However, this "conspiracy", should it be one, could also be primarily an attack on the paid media against the free media. There's a place where intelligence interests and corporate interests certainly come together. I'd be open to any evidence that Seigenthaler is a more conscious "operative" than I know about. At certain levels of society, those lines get pretty blurred anyway.

by **banned** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:55 pm

..and some of us are Net geeks. I came online in 1995 and before that I ran a computer book department. Most people don't have a clue what a wiki is. (By the way, someone on arstecnica.com pointed out if Seigenthaler knew jack shit about Wikipedia he could have edited his own frickin' article instead of having a cow about it.) Or a blog. I live in Silicon Valley and even so I run into people all the time that when I say I was reading a good blog say "Whut?" I have friends, educated people, who tease me or just act puzzled when I talk about people from the various message boards I post on (think about it--imagine how "Well, I was on the blog board and Sepka the Weasel was saying...." Hello, who? I have an online friend whose real name I now know, but she remains Squiddy or Squidlet to me because 'squid' was part of her screen name on the board we met on. To a non-Internet savvy person "Squidlet from the blog" sounds like a horror film. Anyway, all these silly people who live in RL/3D and not in cyberspace come away from this story thinking Wikipedia is a den of malicious vandals out to ruin a good man, and many of them then unthinkingly say "That's bad! It needs to be CONTROLLED!" Or worse, eliminated. To some people the Net, while a useful tool to pay a bill or maybe order a book from Amazon, equals porn and political extremists and if it was totally commercialized they'd be fine. And the people who won't even GO online (I have a smart friend interested in UFOs who is 'afraid' to post on message boards, not from political paranoia--he just 'doesn't know how you do that.' After a couple of YEARS I finally taught him to google so now at least he READS stuff online. Maybe in another couple of years he'll suck it up and make his first post (and believe me, he's a natural for this milieu--this guy knows stuff about Mothman that Indrid Cold's mommy didn't know about him <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> ). We really tend to overestimate the size of the blogosphere, and even the impact of the Net on mainstream media. I was chatting with a reporter from our local town daily and was stunned to find out their stories are not online at all nor are they archived on computer at the paper. So when I called asking about a particular story I saw a few months ago, assuming the reporter could just type in a keyword and pull it up, boy was I wrong--luckily he was the one who wrote it and was able to send me a copy as an email attachment. If he'd left the paper beats me how I'd have found it--gone in their office and paged through the last 2 months of papers, just like it was 1955 not 2005? I also emailed another reporter about an error in one his stories that was something he could have fact-checked in 3 seconds on google; from his reaction I got the feeling he'd never even thought of doing so! Hell, Hunter Thompson still wrote on a typewriter! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **Sweejak** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Wikipedia prankster confesses Wikipedia prankster confesses By Katharine Q. Seelye The New York Times It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with the joker quitting his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering a blow to its credibility. A man in Nashville, Tenn., has admitted that, in trying to shock a colleague with a joke, he put false information into a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville. Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Seigenthaler he had written the material suggesting Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. Seigenthaler discovered the false entry only recently and wrote about it in an op-ed article in USA Today, saying he was especially annoyed that he could not track down the perpetrator because of Internet privacy laws. His plight touched off a debate about the reliability of information on Wikipedia — and by extension the Internet — and the difficulty in holding Web sites and their users accountable, even when someone is defamed. In a letter to Seigenthaler, Chase said he thought that Wikipedia was a "gag" Web site and that he had written the assassination tale to shock a co-worker, who knew of the Seigenthaler family and its illustrious history in Nashville. "It had the intended effect," Chase said of his prank in an interview. But Chase said that once he became aware through news accounts of the damage he had done to Seigenthaler, he was remorseful and scared of what might happen to him. Chase also found that he was slowly being cornered in cyberspace, thanks to the sleuthing efforts of Daniel Brandt, 57, of San Antonio, Texas, who makes his living as a book indexer. Brandt has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia and started an anti-Wikipedia Web site in September after reading what he said was a false entry about himself. Using information in Seigenthaler's article and some online tools, Brandt traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville. Brandt called the company and told employees about the Wikipedia problem but was not able to learn anything. Brandt then sent an e-mail message to the company, asking for information about its courier services. A response bore the same Internet Protocol address that was left by the creator of the Wikipedia entry, offering further evidence of a connection. advertising A call by a reporter to the delivery company Thursday made employees nervous, they later told Seigenthaler. On Friday, Chase hand-delivered a letter to Seigenthaler's office, confessing what he had done, and they talked at length. Wikipedia, a nonprofit venture that is the world's biggest encyclopedia, is written and edited by thousands of volunteers, and mistakes are expected to be caught by users. Chase wrote: "I am truly sorry to have offended you, sir. Whatever fame comes to me from this will be ill-gotten indeed." Seigenthaler said he "was not after a pound of flesh" and would not take Chase to court. Chase resigned because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. Seigenthaler urged Chase's boss to rehire him, but Chase said this had not happened. Seigenthaler, founder of the First Amendment Center, said that as a longtime advocate of free speech, he found it awkward to be tracking down someone who had exercised that right. "I still believe in free expression," he said. "What I want is accountability." <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html">seattletimes.nwsource.com...iki11.html</a>

by **nomo** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:13 pm

Wikipedia author: False entry was joke Writer linked journalist to Kennedy assassinations Monday, December 12, 2005; Posted: 9:24 a.m. EST (14:24 GMT) <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html">www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11...index.html</a> NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A man who posted false information on an online encyclopedia linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations says he was playing a trick on a co-worker. Brian Chase, 38, ended up resigning from his job and apologizing to John Seigenthaler Sr., the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today. "I knew from the news that Mr. Seigenthaler was looking for who did it, and I did it, so I needed to let him know in particular that it wasn't anyone out to get him, that it was done as a joke that went horribly, horribly wrong," Chase was quoted as saying in Sunday editions of The Tennessean. Chase said he didn't know the free Internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia was used as a serious reference tool. The biography he posted, which has since been replaced, falsely stated that Seigenthaler was linked to the Kennedy assassinations and had lived in the Soviet Union from 1971 to 1984. The entry motivated Seigenthaler to write an op-ed piece for USA Today blasting Wikipedia's credibility. He described himself as a close friend of Robert Kennedy and said he had worked with President Kennedy. He said "the most painful thing was to have them suggest that I was suspected of their assassination." Seigenthaler said he doesn't plan to pursue legal action against Chase. He also said he doesn't support more regulation of the Internet, but he said that he fears "Wikipedia is inviting it by its allowing irresponsible vandals to write anything they want about anybody." Chase said he created the fake online biography in May as a gag to shock a co-worker who was familiar with the Seigenthaler family. He resigned as an operations manager at a Nashville delivery company as a result of the debacle. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

by **banned** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:13 pm

...shite I have read in a long time. Breathtaking! What happened was, Seigenthaler's attack on Wikipedia backfired--Wikipedia had its defenders, it made changes, and most importantly people were asking uncomfortable questions about why is Seigenthaler was so goddamned upset he didn't file a John Doe suit and find out who did it instead of making a big to-do on the talk show scene. I would bet my original Barbie doll AND my collection of Lord of the Rings Action figures that this is belated damage control. Poor Mr. Chase fell on his sword and undoubtedly will get a large amount of casheroonie in a Swiss account for his trouble.

by **Sweejak** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:54 pm

I have to agree, Chase's comments are unbelievable to me. I don't have any action figures but will eat my hat.

by **banned** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:05 am

Tell me about this hat, are we talking baseball cap, or a Minnie Pearl complete with price tag? I re-read the two articles and the story gets more unbelievable the second time around. If I wanted to pull a prank on a co-worker, I'd write an article for Wikipedia claiming THEY killed JFK, RFK, MLK, Marilyn Monroe, John Lennon, AND were responsible for the cancellation of Star Trek, the "New Coke" campaign, and Bush stuffing his flight suit crotch on "Mission Accompished" day. Either the 'anti-Wikipedia' guy who claimed to have traced him lied, or Chase DID write the article because he's a gubmint stooge who was told to do it.

by **Sweejak** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:26 am

Well it stinks IMO, I suspect.. ok maybe a little over the top... that they read forums, see how it flies and if it begins to unravel they notch it up one. I'm reading "The Assassinations", just starting, and the level of manipulation is quite amazing. No I haven't done enough research on this one to completlely throw my cards down but I would eat my hat, last post here. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=2257.topic&start=21&stop=30">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=30</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 12/12/05 9:31 pm

by **banned** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:35 am

...they read to realize their initial story was not gonna fly. HEY BOZOS THIS STORY IS EVEN STUPIDER!!!! As for the hat, when I had cancer someone tried to interest me in drinking wheat grass juice as a cure. I tried a cup and decided that between death and drinking wheat grass, I'd pick death. Man, that stuff may be healthful but it tastes like grass clippings! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/sick.gif ALT=":x">

by **Sweejak** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:41 am

It's like something scraped from the bottom of a lawnmower. But it makes a stunning hat in my opinion as long as you don't let it grow there and take all the nutrients out of your haid. I can't find much on Chase but this is the guy who was tracking him down. <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/hand01032003.html">www.counterpunch.org/hand01032003.html</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:58 am

NYT: "...a debate about the reliability of information on Wikipedia and by extension the Internet..." And that's why this is in the Mockingbird NYT which is trying to recover from the exposure of Judy Miller as a neocon shill and get back to selling the war on terra. Time to recharge the foam on the surface of the JFK and RFK murders, too. It does go flat periodically and then you can almost see to the bottom. Not pretty. No, trust the experts. Not the internet. No no. Can't trust publishing by We the People anymore than you can trust them to vote correctly, can one? "Us? We're too polite to be political-don't ask, don't tell. We just sell a few beanie babies on Ebay for fun. Let's not believe anything and watch sports." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 12/13/05 5:56 am

by **Sweejak** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:45 am

A little off topic.... From the book "The Assassinations" regarding Newsweek and infiltration into Garrison's investigation: ... A major contributor to their effort [Shaw's defense] was Newsweek reporter Hugh Aynsesworth.... ... There is a note from Aynesworth on Newsweek letterhead to Wegmann dated 9/18/71 about 18 months past Shaw's acquittal. The entire series of reports Aynesworth cabled to Newsweek-most of it unpublished is part of this file. ... The series of reports on Ferrie strongly suggest that Aynesworth had access to government files. They contain too many details... ... The fact that the information was shared with Wegmann suggests that Aynesworth was a "cutout" for either the FBI or the CIA into Shaw's defense. ... Whatever his covert ties in 1963-1964, by 1967 Aynesworth was on three payrolls. Ostensibly the Newsweek staff, he was also being paid by Time-Life and Ed Wegmann [Shaw's defense] .... In a 2/24/67 report on David Ferrie, Aynesworth describes Ferrie's ordination into the Old Catholic Curch of North America. He then adds parenthetically, "we're trying to protect our own in this group and would appreciate your not using the church's name" Note the use of the possesive pronoun "our own". This clearly denotes Aynesworth knew this strange religious sect was being used by the CIA as a front organization as other sources, like Bannister associate Thomans Beckham, have confirmed." Well, you get the Mockingbird angles here. There is no reason that I can see to believe "them", the MSM, first. I'll gladly take my chances with Wiki in spite of the well known problems it is a good starting point and at least you can see some of the debate, try that with Brittanica. I'll recommend the book: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/d6w9h">tinyurl.com/d6w9h</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 12/12/05 11:48 pm

What do you make of the Wikipedia kerfuffle?

Thanks for the link!

Re: There is no comparison between this incident....

Re: Thanks for the link!

Re: Thanks for the link!

The thing is, we are all Net wise...

Re: The thing is, we are all Net wise...

Wikipedia author: False entry was joke

That is the biggest crock of disinformational...

Re: That is the biggest crock of disinformational...

High five, Sweejak!

Re: High five, Sweejak!

I hope this is one of the forums...

Re: I hope this is one of the forums...

Re: The thing is, we are all Nyet wise...

Re: The thing is, we are all Nyet wise...

Who is online