Slashdot Mirror
Sinbad Rises From Wikipedia Grave
A Chicago Sun-Times article passed to us by an anonymous reader pointed out the fact that the comedian Sinbad is still alive. This is notable, only insofar as Wikipedia thought otherwise. "Rumors began circulating last weekend regarding the posting, said Sinbad, who first got a telephone call from his daughter. The gossip quieted, but a few days later the 50-year-old entertainer said phone calls, text messages and e-mails started pouring in by the hundreds. 'Saturday I rose from the dead and then died again,' the Los Angeles-based entertainer said in a phone interview." Based on the article he seemed fairly okay with the mixup: 'It's gonna be more commonplace as the Internet opens up more and more. It's not that strange.' Wikipedia didn't comment for the Times piece, nor has it contacted the entertainer about the incident.
He couldn't think of anything funny to say about it.
His acting career is still in critical condition.
Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
Unfortunate that his career has been dead for a decade+
--- Do you believe in the day?
...they gave Sinbad another TV show?
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Since when is "some dipstick believed something they read on Wikipedia" news?
I can't help but darkly suspect that this is mostly about a major newspaper trying to declare, "You still need us". And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.
But non-stories like this make me wonder if the Chicago Sun-Times is one of those organizations.
Doesn't he understand how wikiality works? He's dead when we say he's dead!
Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
How come Slashdot death rumors don't make the news? :(
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
That's just a little too convoluted a bit of reasoning for me to believe. I'd be more inclined to think "It's a slow news day for the entertainment section, let's do something a bit controversial, and slam an online source in the process.... win-win for us"
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
A man finds he no longer has an identity because he's been certified dead.
I agree. I think that real journalists writing a story about (one of many) wrong Wikipedia articles is akin to Stephen Hawking writing a paper disproving Creationism. It should be obvious to anybody with a brain that these things are true (namely Wikipedia is often wrong, and Creationism is part of a particularly bad fairy tale). It seems odd that an organization with a good reputation would even bother acknowledging something as absurd as Wikipedia. The fact that the Sun-Times would even print this gives Wikipedia much more credibility than it deserves.
I don't respond to AC's.
Goodbye, Spaceman.
Unless it's possible that news isn't true either.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
This whole thing is stupid. It was a promotional stunt and we all know that Sinbad knew about it from the beginning; probably did it directly, himself.
How many "kid defaces wikipedia, media reports wikipedia is wrong" cases are we going to see? Haven't people figured out by now that Wikipedia is edited by the public, and might occasionally be vandalized or show inaccurate information? Why are we treating every instance of vandalism as though it were some major media-worthy event?
If anything, this just encourages more kiddies to go do the same thing to more visible entries. "What can we make up about President Bush? Maybe we can get it on CNN like Bobbie did last week!"
Seriously, does anyone else care enough to do it? It's a publicity stunt.
Line 2: "First, make sure he's dead."
Sinbad was found dead in his home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Publicity Stunt...
We'll find out tomorrow that the IP that changed the article is somewhere in the vicinity of... SINBAD'S HOUSE! Dun dun dun.
This guy's career has been dead for quite a while. Maybe he got bored... I mean - what famous celebrity hasn't edited their wikipedia page?
This is dumb. The fact that things on the internet might not be true is old news. Wikipedia is no more a reliable source than the rest of the internet and for some reason traditional media just don't get this. Traditional media don't understand the internet and try to apply their rules against it. There's much more information available than traditional sources, but you must be much more vigilant in confirming that information is true.
And knowing all that, wikipedia is still a damn good source. So what if vandalism occurs. They are doing a pretty good job at controlling it. All these people who bitch and whine that wikipedia might not be true obviously don't use it on a regular basis. There's more information on wikipedia than most libraries and the info is a hell of a lot more updated. I'd go as far as to say wikipedia has the most (and most accurate for its volume) information in one single source than any other site on the internet. Complain if you want, but once you find me a source with better, more up to date, free, and accurate information as wikipedia, let me know. Until then I'll support them with my money.
At least wikipedia has peer review processes in place. If a piece of information is wrong in a traditional source, good luck getting it changed. It could take years for it to be changed and up to the sole discretion of one source.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
. . . news about Richard Jeni's death could have turned out to be fake. Now there's a comedian that will be missed! RIP Richard Jeni!
The wiki page had about 500 edits on the 15th. Good grief, people have nothing to do.
thanks for again bringing us yesterday's news as today's headlines.
Sinbad isn't funny... at all, but he was a pretty good sport about this. You'd think, "Hey, why shouldn't he be? It's kind of funny, and he's a comedian," but given previous people's reactions to Wikipedia innacuracies, I'd say this is deserving of at least a nod.
Cheers to you Sinbad. You still suck, but you have my respect.
Game... blouses.
Rumors of Sinbad's death have been greatly exaggerated.
*waits for storm of memes to follow*
Where's the huge story every time they have to post a retraction in the media? It's not like Wikipedia's the only place that has errors anyway. Sometimes publications run false information and never correct it, sometimes they put spin on it, sometimes it's biased.
Tinfoil hat: Big media also has a vested interest in trying to discredit Wikipedia, because they have to make their own information seem real and be taken seriously even when it's not. If they discredit Wikipedia, it's harder for Joe Six to find some alternative viewpoints from big media that people put a lot of stake in. Also, those who lobby cannot bend Wikipedia with money, but big media will always cave in. Nobody but the people really stands to gain from Wikipedia, right?
Twinstiq, game news
I'm nominating his article for deletion for lack of notability. Sinbad hasn't been notable since the early 90s, and if he refuses to stay dead, then we need to kill off his wiki entry as some satisfaction for all the pain he's caused us. I mean, have you seen Houseguest?
Does Netcraft confirm it?
Another "problem" attributed to Wikipedia, when the actual problem lies in the dumb masses interpreting Wikipedia as some sort of peer reviewed encyclopedia...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That wikipedia and 'open content' is completely wrong about everything. Open source is something that should be restricted only to certain software, and that's it. Trying to 'open source' anything that is not software yields to catastrofe.
Somebody should shut wikipedia once and for all and let it RIP.
Jimbo Whales is a pornographer, what did you expect, for gods sake!!
Stephen King and Marlon Wayans, who did not recently die in a car crash, told me so!
I think that more people (fallen stars) will try to use this as a way to get their name out and circulating again !
I don't doubt it for a second that P.R. firms find this a surefire way to get someone in the news.
It worked wonders for Mikey (Life Cereal)
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
Now I know someone vandalized a page on a website that anyone can edit... and the page was protected to stop more vandalism! No. Freaking. Way.
And it's 100% right!
It must be true - I heard it on talk radio (although there weren't any more details).
I don't know how accurate this is, but I've heard that there's an ongoing group prank on b3ta involving obiturising Wikipedia articles. Anyone familiar with the site know?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Great, someone vandalizes Wikipedia, Rick Romero will give us news at 11.
So just how long until Slashdot troll postings make the news!? Seriously, I dread the day they start reporting things like "Are YOUR children in danger? Malicious internet 'trolls' may be posting links to goatse! We'll tell you how to protect your children via the SCO chairman's new Clean Port 80 anti-porn act... after a word from our sponsor, KY Inc."
Drink bleach.
Yes, I know, I just fed the troll.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Oh bugger, I'm not mentioned on WP AT ALL ! &7ds9Ddsa9
<No Carrier>
Add to that their publishing of Robert Novak's drivel and it pretty much proves that to be the case. Besides, the Sun-Times hasn't been relevant since they let Royko go way back when.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
but when it comes to being 'tolerant' of the faith of the majority of Americans
"Let's don't become so tolerant than we tolerate intolerance." -Bill Maher
Religions that seek to spread the message of inferiority in atheists, women and homosexuals are incompatible with civilized society.
It's also just plain silly.
Maybe Sinbad needs a website like this one for Abe Vigoda.
http://www.abevigoda.com/
Yet even they make the same mistakes, from time to time...
I think I'll just sit and wait and watch how this whole media situation develops... who knows what it'll all look like in 10 years' time...
Ignore this signature. By order.
"...Wikipedia didn't comment for the Times piece, nor has it contacted the entertainer about the incident. "
Silly author...
On the other hand: If (When?!!) Wikipedia contacts ANYONE we should all be very affraid!!!
Sinbad made an appearance on Leo LaPorte's "Screen Savers" program on ZDTV back around 1999 or 2000. ZDTV was the predecessor to TechTV a/k/a G4. During the interview, Sinbad mentioned he had a T1 line in his house in LA. Leo, who at that point was just getting comfortable with DSL, was green with envy, as were most tech junkies on the set.
So, while his career may not be at its zenith, I learned from that interview that he is a closeted geek and really enjoys tech stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if he reads /. from time to time.
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
this story is proof of that.
Newspapers used to do the same thing for Abe Vigoda announcing that he was dead too.
Sindbad the comedian ought to play Sindbad the sailor in an action adventure movie with some comedy in it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
but wtf are you all talking about? Who/what the hell is Sinbad?
... but his career is.
I've seen his act, the Wiki entry reporting his death was way overdue.
-- Will program for bandwidth
BSD is dead.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Blue Öyster Cult wrote a song called Joan Crawford with the wonderful refrain "Joan Crawford has risen from the grave." And after Joan Wikipedia can resurrect Richard Nixon.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Aren't liberals ...
I bet you tell ...
your faggots ...
You just made so many cocky assumptions about the parent (in a cock-like manner, I might add) that it makes me think I have to vomit.
Speaking seriously, you should probably avoid using generalizations like these in your conversations. It's unbecoming and people won't listen to what you have to say!
Not that what you have to say is at all interesting or relevant, but that's probably because of the generalizing and the cockery.
And leave the wiki article as is...
... Wikipedia thought otherwise. Stop anthropomorphising Wikipedia. It doesn't like it.Fabio Aquotte
up from the grave he arose
with a might triumph over his foes
he arose a victor from the dark domain...
anyways hessss baaaaaaccccckkkk...
The real question is not how it ended up in the newspaper, but how it ended up on Slashdot. We all understand Wikipedia and its strengths and limitations. This is not news.
Just a nit maybe, but I think you commingled a couple of organizations there that shouldn't be. I think we still need some organization(s) that focus on getting the news early (not necessarily first though) while at the same time getting the news right. I don't think Wikipedia has been known for getting stories early, nor do I think that is one of their stated goals, even if they have developed a bad track record for accuracy (and credentials checking) lately. The fact that Wikipedia can be compared at all with mainstream news services is a black eye for the latter not the former. Can a group of volunteers with little central authority get a story wrong once in a while? Yes. Can "proud" family owned institutions that have been around for a hundred years or so controlling billions of dollars of assets get it wrong with fair regularity too? Yes they can and have.
In the long run, if the mainstream media continues to show no better record of accuracy than things like Wikipedia (and throw in another few web-only publications that do originally sourced stories) they will fade into a well deserved oblivion. I think they can do better though if they (1) stop competing with one another for "first post", and (2) start doing a better job of separating their own political opinions from actual fact. That second issue has caused them on many occasions to follow one erroneous story with dozens of other erroneous stories propping up the first simply because they want the news to come out a certain way.
While we are at it, too bad there aren't two versions of the word "blog". Blog(1) would mean a series of articles, as you suggest, expressing someone's opinion, while blog(2) would refer to a style of web page that has a series of reverse chronological entries, usually created with the aid of some automated software input mechanism. There is of course no reason that all news couldn't be presented in the form of a blog, or series of blogs (on specific topic areas). Many MSM news organizations are moving to this with the blog entries appearing slightly ahead of the published equivalents. I don't think it's a bad way for them to be headed. Now if they could just collect the blog comments they get in order to refine the print stories (and let those wait another day to appear) the "final" printed news stories would probably be a whole lot more accurate (including typos and spelling errors).
They often fail to even check facts, and even when they do, the quality of their output is limited by the fact that journalsists are experts in writing, and not experts in the subject matter they write about, which they often don't really understand.
Wow, so every time a Wikipedia article is vandalized we need a newspaper article and slashdot post about it? This is such non-news...
I guess someone will have to add him to the List of Premature obituaries
Wow, this is the wrong story to be pretending like Wikipedia has equivalent reliability to a mainstream newspaper. Sure, newspapers have typos once in a while, but rarely do they report that a vibrant and healthy, if now somewhat obscure, celebrity has deceased.
That would be fine if that were the case here. Slashdot (both as an entity and community) is simply anti-religion - anything faith-based is either shown in an unfavorable light (story selection by editors) or railed upon (by the community in comments). I think you'll find that religions are trashed equally across the board, and not just the "Religions that seek to spread the message of inferiority in atheists, women and homosexuals".
A prime example. The grandparent post was modded offtopic. Yet your response has nothing to do with Sinbad or Wikipedia, yet it is +5 Insightful, even though it only addresses the topic contained in the offtopic post.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Wikipedia is not equivalent to "things on the internet". Wikipedia, being anonymously edited, has no authority on any subject and must give you a reliable external source for any piece of information in its articles so that you can double check it with something that DOES have authority. Of course most of the time Wikipedia articles don't list any sources which makes them next to useless.
However there are COUNTLESS internet based publications that have strong authority on a given topic, due to the fact that they have built up a reputation and stand to lose it if they get something wrong. They can't fall back on "Sorry, we're a freely editable encyclopedia, you should have known that was a vandalized entry!" like Wikipedia can.
Sometimes Wikipedia errors are as flagrant and obvious as Sinbad not actually being dead. Most of the time they aren't. I wonder how many times you have been misinformed due to your faith in the Wikipedia editing process? Wikipedia's editors are great for removing profanity from entries and other obnoxious vandalism, but nobody spends much time going over the actual content.
Good luck knowing whether or not a given piece of information you are reading and relying on ought to be changed. Most of the time when you read articles it's because you aren't knowledgable and want to be informed, and you probably won't be able to tell whether it's right or wrong unless you double check it.
Uh, you haven't been paying attention. They do that all the time, and in some cases with even better known celebrities. I'm sure you could Google a few instances if you are really interested.
These are MINOR errors of course compared to actual IMPORTANT stories that the MSM have bungled. I'll just point out a few relatively recent ones that were "scandalous": (1) Jason Blair of the New York times who apparently wrote numerous "on the scene" interviews around the country without leaving his living room, and I guess pocketing the unspent expense money while he was at it. (2) The doctored Word documents that were claimed to be produced from a typewriter during the Vietnam war that ultimately caused Dan Rather to take early retirement. (3) More recently photos from from over in Iraq were found to have been seriously doctored by a "trusted" source, and another regular source of news was found to be not a reporter at all and who seemed to be "on the scene" at multiple stories at the same time. Again, we only see the tip of the iceberg, and errors that go way beyond typos appear in news articles every day that don't bubble up to the publics attention.
If you want first hand proof, just try watching C-span "gavel to gavel" coverage on some topic you are familiar with and then check to see what the newspaper or on-the-air reporting looks like. You might be surprised at just how much you are missing (and how much you are getting that isn't really there).
In other, more important news, Jeph Jacques also isn't dead yet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeph_Jacques)
Hmmm, I disagree with Bill Maher here. We can and should tolerate intolerance. Intolerance doesn't in itself kill people. If someone is obeys the rule of law they should be tolerated even if they hold views that you find reprehensible.
And I think that we do, neither blogs (opinion) nor Wikipedia (rumor) replace news from organizations that have an interest in being first (or at least timely) and in being correct.
Wikipedia occasionaly makes mistakes, but it's way above the bias and falsehoods that pervade the rubbish which the media output. There's simply no comparison. Hell, even many blogs do a lot better (presumably you agree, else you wouldn't be reading Slashdot).
Wikipedia, being anonymously edited, has no authority on any subject and must give you a reliable external source for any piece of information in its articles so that you can double check it with something that DOES have authority. Of course most of the time Wikipedia articles don't list any sources which makes them next to useless.
So Wikipedia has no authority, and is no good because it often but not always gives its sources - but every other source on the Internet, including the media, who spout bias rubbish or sometimes outright falsehoods, and never give their sources, that's okay?
The only difference here is that Wikipedia has its history available so that people can nitpick over any short term vandalism that appeared. No one seems to complain about the false information permanently displayed in tabloid articles.
Well, print media has been doing the same thing for decades, it's called propaganda.
Also, it seems the Wiki-vandalism was made by some guy with the username "dabniS", one day before Sinbad made his press announcement. I wonder what that means?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
It's 'news' to wikipedia supporters (i.e. much of slashdot's readers) if an event like this ends up in the Chicago Sun-Times. Sure it's not as important as a new game boy controller or something (sarcasm) but as we tally the number of times events like this happen (Siegenthaler, et al), we can see how a 'free policy' on the internet affects the real world, and how the public and politicians may react.
Also, notice how the newspaper said "Sinbad has said he has not yet received an apology from Wikipedia." Sinbad was cool with it. He didn't say he expected an apology, yet the newspaper had to imply, in a roundabout way, that Wikipedia might be expected to give an apology. If a reporter asked George Bush if he was a hermaphrodite and Bush said 'no', they could end their story on Korean diplomacy with "And George Bush has claimed that he is not a hermaphrodite," and it would imply a possibility that George Bush was a hermaphrodite. My point is, an apology from Wikipedia was not in question, but some reporter asked, and suddenly it becomes a question. I'm not being paranoid or anything, but I know lazy (or possibly biased) journalism when I see it, and I'm a little sensitive about criticism toward Wikipedia.
I would argue that Wikipedia is actually a more reliable source than most of the rest of the Internet. Wikipedia gets read regularly, and edited by the public, so if something is wrong, there is a chance it will be corrected. For much of the rest of the web, there is no such system.
The fact that things on the internet might not be true is old news.
Apparently not, judging by traditional media's reaction.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.