Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spanish TV Channels Vandalize Wikipedia

Posted by kdawson on from the setting-fire-to-a-house-to-see-how-quickly-the-firemen-arrive dept.

strider2004 writes to tell us that Barrapunto, a Spanish tech news site, has outed two TV stations in Spain, one public and the other private, for engaging in Wikipedia vandalism for the sake of a story. (The link is in Spanish; Google translation here.) The public station introduced falsehoods into the Wikipedia entry for John Lennon; the private one vandalized the Elvis Presley entry. Both stations said they were performing an "experiment" to check the reaction time of Wikipedia. Both articles were promptly corrected by other editors.
Update: 08/19 13:01 GMT by KD : Barrapunto is not affiliated with Slashdot.

32 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone can change it without anything to back it,{{citation-needed}} generally changed by the whiny commie demoncrat terrorists to spread their communist lies.{{citation-needed}}

  2. Re:Red neck response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then why do they speak Mexican in Spain?

  3. Re:Red neck response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    for all the idiots: Mexico != Spain

    It is for sufficiently large values of Mexico.

  4. So.... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Goofballs add bogus info to Wikipedia; said bogus info is promptly corrected.

    This is news?

    --
    A Human Right
    1. Re:So.... by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is news?

      Bueno, fue hecho con una computadora...

      --
      What?
    2. Re:So.... by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Funny

      Goofballs add bogus info to Wikipedia; said bogus info is promptly corrected. This is news?
      You're *so* right. In 2048, when IPv4 addresses run out and Wikipedia becomes sentient, we'll all have a laugh about it.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  5. Local FOX News translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    WIKIPEDIA... A free encyclopedia, so free ANYONE can edit it. Are child molesters using it to reach out to YOUR CHILDREN? The answer... coming up later this hour.

    1. Re:Local FOX News translation by msp0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... a story no parent can afford to miss ...

  6. Another Brick In The Wall by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You open what is supposed to be all the world's knowledge combined in a site, except that the policy is to treat it like a public bathroom. That's fine, but why is it news every time someone gets caught taking a shit in it?

    It's fine to let people contribute, but most articles need to be locked down when they are completed, and then you submit stuff to be added for peer review or something. There is no reason why 8 year old Johnny needs to be editing the live version of a page on something he knows nothing about.

    Is there enough new information on Elvis arriving, that his page needs to be open to live submissions from anyone 24/7/365?

    1. Re:Another Brick In The Wall by abhi_beckert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is if 8 year old Johnny can't edit the page, he won't bother. Anyone can fix a typo, but if it's too much work they won't do it.

      The openness is the reason wikipedia succeeded. Not because being open gives better content, but because being open gives more content, and more content makes it valuable to more people, and being valuable to more people gives them more editors, and more editors usually gives better content.

      Also, you're forgetting: any page with regular vandalism does get locked down.

    2. Re:Another Brick In The Wall by init100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's fine to let people contribute, but most articles need to be locked down when they are completed

      How would you define completed? Very few articles can claim to contain every piece of knowledge about the subject. There is always room for more, so locking down anything permanently would be a horribly bad idea.

  7. I'm shocked! by Manchot · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't believe this is true! Why did no one tell me that Slashdot has a Spanish version? Seriously, looking at it is like looking at Bizarro Slashdot.

    1. Re:I'm shocked! by Tatisimo · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's no Slashdot! It has no CowboyNeal option on its polls!

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    2. Re:I'm shocked! by mjsottile77 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno about that. It's not really authentic Spanish Slashdot until their poll has an option involving "VaqueroNeal".

    3. Re:I'm shocked! by niktemadur · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's no Slashdot! It has no CowboyNeal option on its polls!

      Not to mention the usual witty commentary we've all come to know and love, time and again, but in spanish:

      - Imagínate un enjambre Beowulf de estos!
      - Esa no es una luna, es una estación espacial!
      - En Rusia Soviética, Wikipedia te vandaliza a TI!

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  8. Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because it's a medium that allows anyone to edit stuff, it doesn't mean adding bogus information isn't vandalism. That's like spraying painting graffiti on a wall isn't vandalism because paint sticks to the wall.

  9. Re:Wait ..... by BinBoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    How on Earth can two television stations be of homosexual leanings?

    Vandalizing wikipedia is gay.

  10. The experiment was already done before by ILuvRamen · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case nobody remembers, Stephen Colbert's "experiment" proved the response time for fixing BS entries in wikipedia (that librarians are hiding something) in about 15 seconds. Why do they have to try the experiment otra ves? :P

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:The experiment was already done before by belmolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe the Colbert Report is not on Spanish TV?

  11. Re:Need Disclaimer by xaosflux · · Score: 5, Informative

    The bottom of each page links to Wikipedia'a:

    General Disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_dis claimer/

    Which links to the specific disclaimers:

    Risk disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_discla imer/

    Medical disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_dis claimer/

    Legal disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Legal_discl aimer/

    and

    Content disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_dis claimer/

  12. Fair's fair by cabalamat3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think someone should write graffiti on big letters on the walls of these TV stations... purely as an experiment, you understand, to see how long it takes to remove it.

  13. Terrorists place bombs in Spanish TV offices by MarkByers · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We were just testing to see how fast the emergency services would react..."

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  14. barrapunto - not just for nerds by boguslinks · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their slogan is not "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", but "La informacion que te interesa"...

    What does that make them, the spanish Drudge Report?

    1. Re:barrapunto - not just for nerds by Flipao · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's no proper translation for terms like "nerd" or "geek" in spanish, so the only slogan that'd make sense would be "News for people who're good with computers, but socially inept", which doesn't quite have the same ring to it. As a proper nerd, I of course learned english just so I could read the original version of Slashdot. :P

  15. Response times depend on the article by JimboFBX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Other "experiments" kept from us:

    Response time for vandalizing Sonic Hedgehog - 8 days
    Response time for vandalizing Sonic the Hedgehog - 8 seconds

  16. Ah yes. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Vandalism by the media. I guess another entry for this article on Wikipedia.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  17. Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then perceptions != reality. It was never OK.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  18. Spanish Ads by AngryJim · · Score: 3, Funny

    clicking on the Barrapunto link, I get an advertisement for something called "Dorkbot Madrid"

    I think it's the first time an advertisement has ever made me want to buy something, particularly when I have no clue what it is.

  19. Why the outrage? by jparker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the comments so far seem very upset that the TV channels did this, but it really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Wikipedia is a community, a society like any other. It has its values, with accuracy being one of the most important, and someone did a social experiment to see how well that community adhered to its principles. Sure, it required being a little bit of a bad actor, but if Slashdot reported on a new study where researchers bumped into people while carrying several packages and found that Linux users were more likely to help them pick up their dropped items, I don't think the comments would be blasting them for assault.

    This was minor public vandalism, of a kind the community sees every day, and a kind that it was built to correct. If they had launched a systematic campaign to spread disinformation throughout many articles, that would be a serious problem, but changing the date of Lennon's death to 2007 instead of 1977? If edits like that caused Wikipedia any kind of damage, it would have died years ago.

  20. In the name of science by a9bejo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Both stations said they were performing an "experiment" to check the reaction time of Wikipedia."

    Maybe someone should perform an "experiment" to test the stability of that TV station's websites.

  21. Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wikipedia is an online dictionary. Nit: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wiktionary is a dictionary. Otherwise, you make valid points.
  22. Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS by denebian+devil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or, you know, not:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephencolb ert

    "BEFORE YOU POST HERE: Please realize that this user was NOT blocked for vandalism, joking, or 'poking fun at Wikipedia'. This user was banned for violation of Wikipedia's Username policies which state that "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people" are inappropriate and should be indefinitely blocked until confirming evidence (in this case, from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central) shows that this is, in fact, Stephen Colbert. Although Mr. Colbert 'made the edits on national television', he was also joking and it is not at all certain if he was in fact the person who made the edits attributed to this account. Until the blocking administrator (Tawker) receives word from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central that this is Mr. Colbert, this account will remain blocked."