quote:

Bogus Wikipedia Prof. was blessed then promoted By Andrew Orlowski ([email protected]) Published Friday 2nd March 2007 18:08 GMT It's been a busy week for the pipeline that connects the consensus-reality wonderland of Wikipedia with Planet Earth. You won't believe what's just tumbled out at this end. Click here to find out more! Wikipedia's Maximum Leader Jimmy Wales, it transpires, has blessed an identity fraudster who bamboozled journalists last year, by rewarding him with a full-time job and promotion to Wikipedia's politburo. Wales said he had no qualms with the deception. His comments follow an apology issued by The New Yorker magazine this week, after a bogus Professor who claimed to have four degrees, tricked a Pulitizer Prize winning journalist commissioned by the publication. In her glowing feature about Wikipedia published last year for the weekly magazine, Stacy Schiff failed to check the credentials of one her sources. Schiff reported that a Wikipedia contributor who identified himself as "Essjay" was a "tenured professor of religion at a private university in the eastern United States" - as he claimed on his user page - who taught "both undergraduate and graduate theology". He claimed to have a BA and MA in Religious Studies, and Doctorates in Law and Philosophy, and used the fictional credentials to pimp up his reputation, and intimidate adversaries. But the Walter Mitty character turned out to be 24-year old Ryan Jordan, who had no such credentials. That's par for the course for the site where truth is decided by a show of hands, and most contributors cloak their identities. It would have served as a minor cautionary tale for journalists who let their evangelical inclincations get the better of them, and many articles about the phenomenon are little more than puff pieces. Both Schiff, and New Yorker fact-checker Jessica Rosenberg - daughter of Harvard's new President, apparently - took the Wikipedian at face value. Catch as Catch Can Even Jordan professed to astonishment at Schiff and Rosenberg's credulity: "Actually, I did six hours of interviews with the reporter, and two with a fact checker, but I was really surprised that they were willing to do an interview with someone who they couldn't confirm; I can only assume that it is proof I was doing a good job playing the part," he wrote. (This and more Jordan quotes were culled from the site by Wikipedia Watch, and can be found here (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html).) In all likelihood, the story would have been quickly forgotten, had it not been for the reaction of Wikipedia's figurehead and uber-leader Jimmy Wales. Wales not only defended the identity fraudster, but promoted him to a salaried position on Wikia. Wikia Inc. is the corporation co-founded by Wales, which has to date received $14m of investment capital from a VC firm and Amazon.com. Wales also promoted Jordan to the creepy sounding "ArbComm", or Arbitration Committee, which is the next-to-final adjudication panel at Wikipedia. (The final panel consists of the Maximum Leader himself). "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it," Wales told the New Yorker. Wales' insouciance left onlookers amazed. "It does make you wonder about what else happens at Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales doesn't have a problem with," wrote author Stephen Dubner. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger correctly describes it (http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03...identity-fraud/) as an 'identity fraud'. And quite brilliantly, Sanger also gets to the core of the problem - the alternative reality, created by the Wikipedians cult-like devotion to the cause. (As with many cults, failings are attributed to outsiders (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/1...a_gift_spurned/)). "Wikipedians have plainly become a very insular group: they have their own mores and requirements, which are completely independent of the real world," writes Sanger. "Indeed, that's what this story is about, after all: real-world identities and credentials are rejected as unnecessary by Wikipedia. How could Wikipedia fail to become insular with that attitude? " When your reporter first started to chronicle Wikipedia, it was because it so perfectly embodied so many utopian aspects of technology discourse. But perhaps we missed the biggest: its ability to generate an alternative reality, something that strongly characterized (http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/..._big/page3.html) the "Net Neutrality" debate. If this was a movie, it would be a very modern comedy. ®

Source

Encyclopedia Britannica's Response to the Nature article claiming wikipedia being as valid as the encyclopedia.

Evidence of Growing use of wikiepdia as 'reliable' source by journalists.

Is anyone else worried of how highly people regard this thing? Is it just me that thinks that this is as good as a source as those magazines they keep lying around at the barber shops so you don't fall asleep when you're waiting?

Obviously wikipedia has it's uses. It provides the first step towards finding more reliable information. It can provide ideas of what to look for when researching. It can give you a brush over on whatever topic you wish to know more about. Apart from these uses, can we really use wikipedia for anything else. I mean from the article above you even have people that are so good at deceiving contributing to wikipedia that they fooled a pulitzer prize winning journalist! I think it's quite worrying that the use of wikipedia is still increasing, specially because wikipedia itself does not make any real effort to explain to people why it is not a reliable source. Specially since they want to appear as a reliable source, when they know they are not!

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

We're going to see more and more of this sort of thing as information becomes more and more ubiquitous.

As a matter of fact, in some instances, the "facts", especially of history, may be (as they tend to be) rewritten somewhat, and no one will ever be the wiser.

However, I do believe wiki to be an invaluable resource, and one that will really cause the flow of humanity's future to accelerate. It's all about knowledge.

What people need to realize is that it's just a brief resource for a given topic, and *can* be incorrect. It's strength lies in its ability to allow the reader to crack into a given field or subject that they normally would not have been able; but finding the deeper resources and nitty gritty should be the reader's job -- there are a million other resources to explore out there, both physical and ethereal (internet).

I am one of those people who use it all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail I am one of those people who use it all the time.

As well.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX It provides the first step towards finding more reliable information.

Unless you're basing the findings of Wiki for a PHD, there's nothing wrong with the corrections from a common collective.
All major, in depth studies are regulated by some sort of committee or group anyways so what's wrong with a public collective?
Wiki will tell us if an article is under dispute.

Not saying Wiki is the end all, be all, but for the majority of us, it's a great reference; key word being, "reference".

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Yes, it's good quick brush-over of a topic and assuming it's not been meddled with too much by mischief makers it does the job. As a definitive resource or even an accurate one, hell no

I never source any website with ".com" in papers.

.edu
.org (Sometimes)
.gov

That's pretty much it.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I never source any website with ".com" in papers. .edu .org (Sometimes) .gov That's pretty much it.

You're right, these types of websites have more of an obligation to at least appear to be "together" datawise.

Honestly, I doubt most data offhand, not because its necessarily wrong, but because it was written by human beings. I guess it's the inner scientist in me.

"If you believe everything you read, better not read."

Japanese proverb

When it comes to sources I'd rather deal with the known evil of wiki than the unknown evil lurking behind more "reliable" sources. I don't trust wiki any more than you, I just trust everything else less.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Yes, it's good quick brush-over of a topic and assuming it's not been meddled with too much by mischief makers it does the job. As a definitive resource or even an accurate one, hell no

My thoughts exactly.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Interesting little related article...

quote:

Wikipedia foes set up site to set the people right Bobbie Johnson March 3, 2007 T has been attacked many times in its short life, most notably by a former aide to the late Robert Kennedy and the editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica. But now the online reference site Wikipedia has a new foe: evangelical Christians. A website founded by US religious activists aims to counter what they claim is "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia that has become one of the most popular sites on the web. The founders of Conservapedia say their site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they say is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American". Although entries on Wikipedia are open for anyone to edit, conservative campaigners say they are unable to make changes because of inherent bias by its global team of volunteer editors. Instead they have chosen to build a clone that they hope will promote Christian values. "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," said Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach." Among his criticisms listed on Conservapedia, Mr Schlafly explains how many Wikipedia articles often use British spelling instead of American English and says it "refuses" to give enough credit to Christianity for the Renaissance. "Facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored," he says. Mr Schlafly, a lawyer, is the son of a prominent American conservative, Phyllis Schlafly, famed for her opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment. Conservapedia was created last November as a project for home-schooled children, Mr Schlafly said, and he believes it could eventually become a reference for teachers in the US. "It is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind," he said. Wikipedia has come in for criticism for its open approach, notably from Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica. He disputed a survey in the journal Nature that found the website was just as accurate as its venerable counterpart. A Tennessee journalist, John Seigenthaler, attacked the site for falsely suggesting he had been accused of involvement in the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy in the 1960s. The arrival of Conservapedia has been met with derision by much of the internet community. But Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, said he was not upset by the right-wing site's claims: "Free culture knows no bounds."

SMH

It does make you consider if you haven't already the sources contributing out there to the site and something to be wary of. Bit like the current fad of 'Mike Moore' & 'Al Gore' and all the other conspiracy stuff, biased docu-drama's floating around under the pretence of being a 'documentary'.

Does make me worry a little that the moderate, non-biased viewpoint in society is becoming a very rare luxury, I think it always was but the death knell seems to be ringing out a bit louder in the current, quite polarised society for both knowledge and opinion to follow a dictated route depending on which side of the fence you sit.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Interesting little related article... SMH

Indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It does make you consider if you haven't already the sources contributing out there to the site and something to be wary of. Bit like the current fad of 'Mike Moore' & 'Al Gore' and all the other conspiracy stuff, biased docu-drama's floating around under the pretence of being a 'documentary'.

Yeah, by traditional standards, they're certainly not documentaries per se, more like a point of view, which compromises the "objective" nature a documentary is supposed to have. Then again, I have yet to see or hear anything political that isn't biased. And I don't like Moore or Gore btw.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Does make me worry a little that the moderate, non-biased viewpoint in society is becoming a very rare luxury, I think it always was but the death knell seems to be ringing out a bit louder in the current, quite polarised society for both knowledge and opinion to follow a dictated route depending on which side of the fence you sit.

Moderate? LOL, define moderate. Most so called 'moderates' seem pretty irrational, sometimes even insane, to me. There's certainly nothing moderate about them, and yes, that indludes you PKC . They usually seem like nothing more than people afraid of actually taking a stance on something, unless ofcourse it socially acceptable or agreed upon, to avoid labels, awkwardness, and discomfort. Non-biased viewpoint? Haven't seen those eigther, here or anywhere else, since the "standard" for what's ethical/moral/justifiable seem to be non-agreeable and usually quite hypocritical; the standards vary drastically depending on who it's being applied to. It's just the illusion of moderate/non-biased that's disappearing more than anything. But I concede that, at the very least, the standards in journalism and mainstream news reporting have really dropped to a level that's beyond pathetic.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Source Encyclopedia Britannica's Response to the Nature article claiming wikipedia being as valid as the encyclopedia. Evidence of Growing use of wikiepdia as 'reliable' source by journalists. Is anyone else worried of how highly people regard this thing? Is it just me that thinks that this is as good as a source as those magazines they keep lying around at the barber shops so you don't fall asleep when you're waiting? Obviously wikipedia has it's uses. It provides the first step towards finding more reliable information. It can provide ideas of what to look for when researching. It can give you a brush over on whatever topic you wish to know more about. Apart from these uses, can we really use wikipedia for anything else. I mean from the article above you even have people that are so good at deceiving contributing to wikipedia that they fooled a pulitzer prize winning journalist! I think it's quite worrying that the use of wikipedia is still increasing, specially because wikipedia itself does not make any real effort to explain to people why it is not a reliable source. Specially since they want to appear as a reliable source, when they know they are not!

How about next time we're arguing, instead of me quoting you the same information from Wikipedia, I'll just give you the page number and author of whatEver the book / documentation about it and you can have fun reading/getting it for yourself. Why should I waste my time entertaining you when it doesnt really matter? You are just pissed off that Wikipedia has shot holes in your stories so much. Its the same information, I know what I quote. Surely there's mistakes and incorrect information on Wikipedia - but same things can be said about books and scientists who are biased or wrong in their judgements - you cant just say PH.D's are always right and encyclopedias are often wrong. There's PH.D's on both sides of many conflicts, so what???

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture