Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Hoax Author Confesses

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the fact-or-fiction dept.

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."

8 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Since when... by Red+Samurai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has Wikipedia been a solid information resource? It shouldn't be taken THAT seriously...

    1. Re:Since when... by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How come this is modded as flamebait? Wikipedia is *not* a reliable source of information. It is a very good place to start researching a topic but any information needs to be confirmed with a second, external source.

      Wikipedia is very useful and I use it myself for papers and research projects but it shouldn't be considered solid due to it's changable nature (articles get updated all the time, people can post wrong information etc).

      By all means use wikipedia as an information resource, but also make sure that you another source that validates the information.

      --
      Silly rabbit
  2. Cybersleuth, indeed by kalpol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The guy did a whois on the IP address and he's made to sound like a regular Sherlock Holmes.

    --
    12:50 - press return.
  3. Notable quote by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    Indeed.

    The problem is that many people believe that actions - including speech - shouldn't have consequences.

    1. Re:Notable quote by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that many people believe that actions - including speech - shouldn't have consequences.

      Freedom of speech, by necessity, includes freedom after speech. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity.


      In this particular situation, the speech involved counts as a stupid joke, or possibly a subtle political jab. If, instead, the relevant Wiki article had included concrete evidence that Bush and Blair lied to the world for the purpose of controlling the world Mango market, or a leaked internal memo showing the Diebold CEO deliberately made defective machines that gave extra votes to Libertarians - Would we still consider it an "abuse" of free speech, or exactly the reason we need free speech?


      Yes, with free speech comes a certain degree of responsibility... On the part of the AUDIENCE. Charlatans and outright liers will always exist, and would even if we didn't have a 1st amendment in the US. Anyone who accepts a single Wiki entry as "proof" of ANYTHING deserves the ridicule they get when more skeptical readers point out the real facts.

    2. Re:Notable quote by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Free - as in "of consequences - to me".

      No. Free of consequences from the state.

      With rights come responsibilities. They are intrinsically linked and inseparable. The problems come when people believe there is, or should be, no relationship between them.

  4. Tipp: register to post anonymously by adnonsense · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Mr. Chase had spent the 30 seconds or required to create a Wikipedia account (valid email address not required!) he would have stopped the "cyber-sleuth" (hah) in his tracks. Wikipedia seems to laboring under the apprehension that IP addresses are somehow anonymous, whereas they provide far more information to third parties than an account name does (unless the poster is savvy enough to use a reasonably anonymous proxy not blocked by Wikipedia).

  5. How to use Wikipedia by nephridium · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wikipedia is one of the greatest resources for knowledge on the web. Not necessarily for the contents of the articles, which obviously range from 'exceptionally well done' to 'nothing but a troll post', but for the links and sources that are supplied at the end of the page that will get you started in getting the "real" information.

    In this respect Wikipedia is actually far more effient than any search engine, because ALL links will point to pages with information on the subject - filtering between 'good' and 'bad' webpages is quite straight forward. This approach will also give you a layer of redundancy which is required when doing good research on any topic.

    --


    And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.