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."

10 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. 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.

  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. 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?"