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.
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?
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 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!"
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.
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.
Does Netcraft confirm it?