Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 19, No. 480.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
www.princeton.edu/humanist/
Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu
[1] From: "Patrick T. Rourke" <ptrourke_at_methymna.com> (31)
Subject: Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
[2] From: "Gerry Coulter" <gcoulter_at_ubishops.ca> (3)
Subject: RE: 19.474 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
[3] From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman_at_bi.no> (42)
Subject: Wikipedia is prohibited in my courses.
[4] From: Ingbert Floyd <ifloyd2_at_gmail.com> (156)
Subject: Re: 19.474 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
[5] From: Patrick Durusau <patrick_at_durusau.net> (56)
Subject: Re: 19.474 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:27:16 +0000
From: "Patrick T. Rourke" <ptrourke_at_methymna.com>
Subject: Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
>Federal law also protects online corporations - BellSouth, AOL, MCI
>Wikipedia, etc. - from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the
>Communications
>Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or
>user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
>publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and
>broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for
>disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.
[I am not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advice or opinion,
but merely a layman's interpretation of information in the
Siegenthaler article.]
As far as BellSouth, AOL, and MCI are concerned, that's necessary and
desirable: they're common carriers. Telephone companies cannot be
sued for carrying slanderous communications over their lines because
they are not publishers or editors, but common carriers. If the
publication in question had been a scurrilous flyer someone had
printed at the local copy shop on the self-serve xerox machines,
would he now be complaining because he couldn't sue the owners of the
copy shop for libel?
If Wikipedia is seen as a common carrier, that would surprise me; Mr.
Siegenthaler might have an argument there, as Wikipedia seems far
more like a publisher to me than a telephone company.
While I feel for Mr. Siegenthaler, it seems to me that the recourse
suggested to him by the ISP is fine: a John Doe lawsuit, as
recommended, with a subpoena to the ISP. (Personally, I'd also see if
I could find listserv archives for assassination conspiracy
discussion lists and try to search for the IP address there.)
There are many, many problems with Wikipedia's editing model: but a
libel victim's inability to sue the ISP of a libelous Wikipedia
author is not one of them.
Patrick Rourke
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:30:06 +0000
From: "Gerry Coulter" <gcoulter_at_ubishops.ca>
Subject: RE: 19.474 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
Like the rest of the world Wikipedia is a great toy
Have fun
Gerry
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:28:31 +0000
From: Ken Friedman <ken.friedman_at_bi.no>
Subject: Wikipedia is prohibited in my courses.
Friends,
There is now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory
information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting
this as a reference source in universities and university-level
professional schools. The same is true of inaccurate or false
assertions in many articles.
The problem with Wikipedia is not that the Wiki system MAY
develop a solid and reliable reference work, but that in the
current form, it DOES NOT. It is as easy to change an article
for the worse as for the better.
Nearly any university student today has access to a decent
library and good on-line reference texts. In addition, anyone
willing to search a bit will also fine outstanding SIGNED
references sources by major scholars in many fields, as well
as useful albeit older versions of respected references source
no longer covered by copyright.
The article posted to Humanist by Norman Hinton and recent
cases -- one concerning the prime minister of Norway -- leads
me to conclude that Wikipedia has no way to prevent
this from happening. This is made all the worse by the fact
that Wikipedia is an automatic flow-through resource for
other on-line sources.
Wikipedia is unacceptable as a research tool.
I have informed my students that they may no longer use
Wikipedia as a reference or source on papers in my courses.
Students and student research are an important validation
mechanism for Wikipedia.
If enough of us prohibit Wikipedia as a reference source in
our courses, programs, and schools, the message will
eventually get through.
When it does, Wikipedia will find an appropriate way to monitor
contributions. If they do not, the reputation of Wikipedia will
sink to that of another crank web site.
Yours,
--
Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Design Research Center
Denmark's Design School
email: ken.friedman_at_bi.no
--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:38:04 +0000
From: Ingbert Floyd <ifloyd2_at_gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 19.474 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
For those interested, there is a discussion about this article and the
related issues it brings up occuring on the Association of Internet
Researchers list. You can view the thread here:
http://listserv.aoir.org/pipermail/air-l-aoir.org/2005-December/thread.html
Ingbert Floyd
PhD Student
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
On 12/3/05, Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty
<willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>) <willard_at_lists.village.virginia.edu>
wrote:
> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 19, No. 474.
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
> www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
> www.princeton.edu/humanist/
> Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:07:03 +0000
> From: Norman Hinton <hinton_at_springnet1.com>
> Wikipedia!]
>
> Untrustworthy Wikipedia again:
>
> A false Wikipedia 'biography'
>
> By John Seigenthaler
>
> USA Today (at Yahoo News), Wed Nov 30, 6:50 AM ET
>
> "John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert
> Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to
> have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both
> John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." - Wikipedia
>
> This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination.
> It could be your story.
>
> I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious
> "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the
> popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and
> virtually untraceable. There was more:
>
> "John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to
> the United States in 1984," Wikipedia said. "He started one of the
> country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."
>
> At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative
> said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I
> was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also
> was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler,
> journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same
> scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com.
>
> I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about
> "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide
> visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people
> with no special expertise or knowledge - and sometimes by people with
> malice.
>
> At my request, executives of the three websites now have removed the
> false content about me. But they don't know, and can't find out, who
> wrote the toxic sentences.
>
> Anonymous author
>
> I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have
> any way to know who wrote that?"
>
> "No, we don't," he said. Representatives of the other two websites said
> their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia,
> never checking whether it is false or factual.
>
> Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in
> letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible
> research tool.
>
> But searching cyberspace for the identity of people who post spurious
> information can be frustrating. I found on Wikipedia the registered IP
> (Internet Protocol) number of my "biographer"- 65-81-97-208. I traced it
> to a customer of BellSouth Internet. That company advertises a phone
> number to report "Abuse Issues." An electronic voice said all complaints
> must be e-mailed. My two e-mails were answered by identical form
> letters, advising me that the company would conduct an investigation but
> might not tell me the results. It was signed "Abuse Team."
>
> Wales, Wikipedia's founder, told me that BellSouth would not be helpful.
> "We have trouble with people posting abusive things over and over and
> over," he said. "We block their IP numbers, and they sneak in another
> way. So we contact the service providers, and they are not very
responsive."
>
> After three weeks, hearing nothing further about the Abuse Team
> investigation, I phoned BellSouth's Atlanta corporate headquarters,
> which led to conversations between my lawyer and BellSouth's counsel. My
> only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John
> or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer." Major communications
> Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the
> identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a
> lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name.
>
> Little legal recourse
>
> Federal law also protects online corporations - BellSouth, AOL, MCI
> Wikipedia, etc. - from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications
> Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or
> user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
> publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and
> broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for
> disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.
>
> Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively
> has barred defamation in cyberspace. Wikipedia's website acknowledges
> that it is not responsible for inaccurate information, but Wales, in a
> recent C-Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website is
> accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors (he
> said he has only one paid employee) corrects mistakes within minutes.
>
> My experience refutes that. My "biography" was posted May 26. On May 29,
> one of Wales' volunteers "edited" it only by correcting the misspelling
> of the word "early." For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a
> suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website's history
> Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on Answers.com and Reference.com for
> three more weeks.
>
> In the C-Span interview, Wales said Wikipedia has "millions" of daily
> global visitors and is one of the world's busiest websites. His
> volunteer community runs the Wikipedia operation, he said. He funds his
> website through a non-profit foundation and estimated a 2006 budget of
> "about a million dollars."
>
> And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities
> for worldwide communications and research - but populated by volunteer
> vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and
> protects them.
>
> When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She
> held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will
> fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow.
> That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
>
> For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.
>
> John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, founded The Freedom Forum First
> Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. He also is a former editorial
> page editor at USA TODAY.
>
--
==========================================
Check out the unofficial GSLIS Wiki:
http://www.gslis.org/
Tell me what you think, if you find it useful, or if you have any
ideas for how to organize it better. And if you feel comfortable
doing so, I heartily encourage you to contribute content!
This GSLIS is the Graduate School of Library and Information Science
at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
--[5]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:38:31 +0000
From: Patrick Durusau <patrick_at_durusau.net>
Subject: Re: 19.474 Wikipedia: not such a wonderful world?
Greetings,
> From: Norman Hinton <hinton_at_springnet1.com>
> >
> Untrustworthy Wikipedia again:
>
> A false Wikipedia 'biography'
>
>By John Seigenthaler
<snip>
>And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities
>for worldwide communications and research - but populated by volunteer
>vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and
>protects them.
While Seigenthaler has a valid complaint, consider that the
performance of the so-called professional news organizations during
an event like Hurricane Katrina.
A good portion of the hyped coverage of chaos in New Orleans, murders
in the Super Dome, looting, snipers, etc., was simply false. I have
yet to see any retractions reported with the same breathless
excitement of the original coverage. Nor do I expect to see any. Yes,
there was looting, some shooting incidents but the professional
coverage made it sound like Mogadishu on a very bad day.
What I find more disturbing is the self-serving claims of
"professional" publishers that presume that scholars should simply
accept whatever claims they report. Even if the OED (to pick a
publication that is, in my opinion, deserving of respect) reports a
usage or quotation, why would anyone simply accept that without
critical evaluation of the claim? Has scholarship gotten so careless
that a report in a "respected" resource is simply accepted as fact?
I can understand that for high school or even freshman compositions
but shouldn't humanists be holding themselves to a higher standard?
And if they do, shouldn't they suggest corrections to entries in
Wikipedia, much as they would for a mistake found in the OED?
All of which avoids the real issue, which is the chagrin of some
groups who exercised a modest amount of control over what was said in
particular disciplines prior to the advent of the WWW. Personally I
don't find research literature to be any more uneven post-WWW than it
was pre-WWW. Simply because an article appears in a respected journal
does not exempt it from critical evaluation or running its citations
back to their sources. And to continue that with the sources until
one is satisfied with a particular statement or claim.
I can't speak of averages or the experience of the average Humanist
reader, but I can report that I have found substantial variance
between sources and the literature (peer reviewed and otherwise)
citing it. Whether a statement appears in a pricey European journal
or on Wikipedia, responsibility lies with the reader to evaluate
those statements.
Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick_at_Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
Received on Tue Dec 06 2005 - 02:16:22 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 02:16:23 EST