Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sacha Baron Cohen Wikipedia Entry Creates Circular References

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the 10-goto-20;-20-goto-10 dept.

Lantrix writes "An anonymous user added information to Wikipedia's entry on Sacha Baron Cohen three days before the now-referenced external article was written. The Independent wrote the referenced article apparently using Wikipedia as the source establishing his 'Goldman Sachs' career. Now Wikipedia uses as a references the article that came after the initial modification to Wikipedia itself."

19 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Accountability by 26199 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So a journalist used Wikipedia as a primary source, added something incorrect to an article. Now the same Wikipedia page is using that article as its primary source, which in the view of Wikipedia makes the incorrect fact true. Chaos ensues.

    The weak link is the journalist -- who should have known better. And now the newspaper presumably knows all about it. So perhaps this kind of problem can be self-correcting in the long run...

    1. Re:Accountability by explosivejared · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. This doesn't even seem to be as big a deal as the article makes it out to be.

      Now wikipedia uses as its references the articles that came after the initial modification to Wikipedia itself

      I found the summary particularly inflammatory for no apparent reason. I mean, wow! People sometimes misuse wikipedia! We had no idea! This isn't standard practice or any guideline set down by admins. It's one case where some anonymous editor acted foolishly.

      You can take this and make a point about how lightly people these days treat information. They don't even consider verifiability and good practice like that. What you can't do is somehow take this and make it a crusade against wikipedia like the summary hints at.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    2. Re:Accountability by unlametheweak · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would think that any circular references would be self-correcting by the Wikipedia community. Therein lies the solution, and the problem; there does need to be consistent and enforcible rules that are devoid of ambiguity and self-interest, with a measured degree of accountability.

  2. What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    When the whole world uses Wikipedia as the reference for a lot of things, what's wrong when Wikipedia does it? This is completely biased...

  3. Recursion, see also: Recursion. by grm_wnr · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA:
    >A recent post on SlashDot quotes an IT professor saying

    I hope this isnt a circular reference to THIS post.

    1. Re:Recursion, see also: Recursion. by flimflam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole Web 2.0 Internet is a just a mass of circular references. Be thankful that it isn't telling you the holocaust never happened, or something else obviously untrue. Actually, it's the believable but false information that's much more insidious and dangerous.

      --
      -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
  4. It is not a source... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You just have to use it for what it is... It helps you start research. It is a lead generator, or an index. But if you think it actually has answers, or your research can end there, you are an idiot. But you have a lot of company.

    1. Re:It is not a source... by Salgat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish people would use the damn references section at the bottom of the Wiki pages.

  5. Ronnie Hazlehurst by MagdJTK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This has in fact happened before. When Ronnie Hazlehurst died, multiple newspapers here in the UK mentioned that he cowrote "Reach" by S Club 7. This information came from Wikipedia (and was the result of vandalism), but once a few papers had published it, everyone did, as it was clearly backed up by many reliable sources.

    The article is still being edited to include this "fact" every now and again, often referring to one of the articles which made the error.

    1. Re:Ronnie Hazlehurst by matt+me · · Score: 5, Funny

      He now receives royalties.

  6. Not the first time by RockMFR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've seen circular referencing occur many times on Wikipedia, often by complete accident. If journalists actually gave their own sources when writing articles, it would be much less of a problem. Of course they will never do that, as then it would be revealed that they themselves don't bother fact-checking at all.

  7. Fact checking by wbean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what happened to fact checking? There was a time when a small army of fact checkers would verify things like this before they were published. The Internet is a great tool but it's pulling the rug out from under the newspapers and we will all suffer from the loss of reliable, fact-checked information.

    1. Re:Fact checking by bongomanaic · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is the British press we're talking about. Instead of "Is it true?" the question they ask is "Will they sue?"

  8. Setup? by corporatemutantninja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't anybody find it curious that this "anonymous" poster knew the article was coming out before it did, and that the author of the article happened to look up his subject on wikipedia just as the entry was updated? If I wanted to discredit Wikipedia, or at least cause a minor stir, I would probably construct an artificial circular-reference scenario, and this is how I would do it. In any event, the previous comments to the effect that the flaw was in the journalism are spot on.

    --
    Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
  9. It must be true. I read it on the Internets. by Jonah+Bomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if Wikipedia AND the Independent say it's true, it must be. Right?

  10. Cheney did it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not the first time something like this has happened. Before the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times quoted a "high level" person within the administration of as saying Iraq has started up their weapons program again. Dick Cheney then quoted that article on Meet the Press I believe as proof of the Iraqi weapons program. It later surfaced that Cheney was the "high level" person within the administration who made the original quote.

  11. Re:Summary by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And in English?

    A = anonymous Wiki node, B = Independent article.

    A make a claim with B as a reference.
    B makes the same claim with A as the reference.

    Thus, both sources have technically substantiated their claim, despite the niggling li'l absence of "truth".

  12. Not just wikipedia by plopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Recall that some of the Iraq WMD intelligence cited as further evidence by Bush was from the Brits. And the Brits got their info from.... the Americans.

    So it just isn't Wikipedia that needs to be careful.

    Nothing new to see here... move along....

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  13. It's ok by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's wikipedia, it's possible to correct this kind of thing. In fact there is no longer a reference to the article in Wikipedia.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news