Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia Hoax Author Confesses

cmholm writes "As reported in The Seattle Times, Nashville resident Brian Chase has publically admitted that he edited a Wikipedia entry for John Seigenthaler, making appear that Mr. Seigenthaler was involved in the assassination of JFK. Mr. Chase fessed up after a cyber-sleuth tracked down the business from which he had posted to Wikipedia."

7 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Turnabout by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's his wiki entry.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. Re:Cybersleuth, indeed by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a comment noted in the previous story on this hoax, the guy would've been less trace-able if he'd posted as ILURVCONSPIRACIES or something instead of being anonymous and allowing a visible IP.

    --

    Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
  3. Re:Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, since its written and not spoken the word would be 'libel'

  4. The irony is delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've got to love a post where someone says to look up "slander", and they never actually looked up "slander".

    You crack me up, dude.

    Slander
    1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
    2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare libel
        -slan£der£ous \-d(-)rs\ adjective
        -slan£der£ous£ly adverb
        -slan£der£ous£ness noun

    (from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

    Perhaps you meant libel?

    Again from Merriams...

    Main Entry: 1li£bel
    Pronunciation: l-bl
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
    Date: 14th century

    Libel
    1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
    2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b(1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

  5. Re:What tool did he use? by fatboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I bet he did what I just did.

    [fatboy@localhost fatboy]$ host 65.81.97.208
    208.97.81.65.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer adsl-065-081-097-208.sip.bna.bellsouth.net.

    Bellsouth, like many ISPs, use airport city codes in the RR to show the nearest city. bna is Nashville International Airport.

    Go to the IP address in a browser. It returns the simple message "Welcome to Rush Delivery.

    Search google for "Rush Delivery" nashville, and there you have it.

    No big deal.

    --
    --fatboy
  6. I am Mr. Cyber-Sleuth by Everyman · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a chronology of how it was traced at the bottom of this page.

    I am no genius. There was one chance in 10,000 that there would be a server on that IP address, and that it would be up when I tried it on impulse (it timed out during nightime hours during all of last week).

    Mr. Seigenthaler is very gracious in complimenting me, but I am no genius. Anyone who knows the difference between an IP address and a hot-dog with mustard could have done the same thing. That includes dozens, or maybe hundreds, of Wikipedians. But they didn't bother now, did they?

    It was a pleasure to work with Mr. Seigenthaler on this trace. He is an amazing, accomplished person, and I have a huge amount of respect for him. Before his Wikipedia story came out, I wasn't aware of him.

    He's the genius, although it is true that I know more about Internet infrastructure than he does. But I know nothing that would impress all the clever Slashdotters reading this, I'm sure.

  7. Re:Well... by doubledoh · · Score: 4, Informative
    The difference between Wikipedia and say, The New York Times is that the writers of the New York Times are PAID to write accurately. If they fail to perform their duties (write "truth" that can be confirmed), then they will be fired and possibly shunned from the journalism industry. Thusly, there is a motivation to write as much truth as possible to avoid negative financial consequences or a coerced career change. There are no such consequences on Wikipedia which is why its writers are more nonchalant and sometimes intentionally innacurate.

    So, a "reliable" publisher is one that controls its writers to a degree with positive or negative consequences.

    --
    I think, therefore I doh.