Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

John Seigenthaler Sr. Criticises Wikipedia

Posted by samzenpus on from the everything-on-the-internet-is-true dept.

EsonLinji writes "John Seigenthaler Sr, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, has written a commentary in USA Today expressing outrage at a libelous biography that appeared on Wikipedia that suggested he was involved with the assasination of JFK and spent more than a decade in Russia. His commentary also takes aim at internet providers and the laws that allow them to act as common carriers without liability for the actions of their users."

6 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    no link to the article?

  2. From Wikipedia by bdesham · · Score: 4, Informative
    On November 29, 2005, Seigenthaler wrote an op-ed in USA Today discussing his biography on Wikipedia. The article had contained incorrect statements between May and September of that year, including allegations which he considered "character assassination." The statements, which had been inserted anonymously, had been removed by the time he wrote the article.
    link. (Emphasis mine.)
    --
    Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
  3. Re:why no moderation by jacoplane · · Score: 5, Informative

    Isn't it a bit ironic that Wikipedia (supposedly a reliable encyclopedia) has less advanced moderation than Slashdot (famously unreliable)? Perhaps it's time they got a bit more structure.

    Actually, a new feature called article validation is about to go live on wikipedia. See the article from this week's signpost. The feature will hopefully help adress some of the issues being raised in this story.


    I do also notice that Wikipedia has a lot of entries for stuff that might not otherwise be considered important enough to be in an encyclopedia - open source software that is not yet out of beta, cars in video games etc.

    Yeah, so? Jimmy Wales:"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." ... That includes obscure topics like video games that you might not care about.

  4. Re:Standard wikipedia response by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't believe he made anyone aware of it, either,

    Actually he called up Jimbo and it was changed (that's what happens when you RTFA ;)). From my impression of the article, Jimbo was more then helpful and the writer appreciated it and didn't hold him personally responsible. However he does want to make Jimbo legally responsible in the future, which is quite odd considering how much of a positive response he got from him (I guess Bellsouth's response left a very sour taste in his mouth).

  5. Re:First Amendment by ViolentGreen · · Score: 3, Informative

    The law makes a clear distinction between First Ammendment rights and libel. He is suggesting that this is a libelous and damaging article.

    I have to admit that I was expecting more than a couple of sentences of offending text in wikipedia though. Either one of those sentences could be passed off as misinformation though. Even if he found the author, I think it would be hard to prove that it is libel.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  6. Anonymity, an honorable tradition by bourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was going to point out the role that anonymous pamphleteers played in kindling the American Revolutionary War, which I think we're safe in assuming John Seigenthaler Sr still recognizes as a good thing. But in researching references, I found someone who had already articulated this argument better than I could hope to:

    If not for the use of pen names, our monetary system would probably be in pounds and shillings rather than dollars. The political debate that led to the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution was waged under pseudonyms, published not only in newspapers throughout the colonies, but in pamphlets that were widely circulated.

    (Full article by Ken Anderson, Editor of the Magic City Morning Star, is here; it points out how many of the founding fathers 'posted anonymously')

    It's too bad John Seigenthaler Sr. has his feelings hurt by what is an obviously untrue story about him. I'm a little suprised that someone with what appears to be both polititcs and journalism in his background is so easily perturbed such ludicrous accusations; both professions generally involve thicker skins than that. he's welcome to his opinion about the wisdom of allowing anonymity - but fortunately (in my opinion!), reality differs.