False Fact On Wikipedia Proves Itself

An anonymous reader writes "Germany has a new minister of economic affairs. Mr. von und zu Guttenberg is descended from an old and noble lineage, so his official name is very long: Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. When first there were rumors that he would be appointed to the post, someone changed his Wikipedia entry and added the name 'Wilhelm,' so Wikipedia stated his full name as: Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. What resulted from this edit points up a big problem for our information society (in German; Google translation). The German and international press picked up the wrong name from Wikipedia — including well-known newspapers, Internet sites, and TV news such as spiegel.de, Bild, heute.de, TAZ, or Süddeutsche Zeitung. In the meantime, the change on Wikipedia was reverted, with a request for proof of the name. The proof was quickly found. On spiegel.de an article cites Mr. von und zu Guttenberg using his 'full name'; however, while the quote might have been real, the full name seems to have been looked up on Wikipedia while the false edit was in place. So the circle was closed: Wikipedia states a false fact, a reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is then used as the source to prove the false fact to Wikipedia."

Comments

1984?

[betterunixthanunix]

Wikipedia now creates the truth. If they say 2+2=5, then 2+2=5. You will learn to love Big Wiki.

Re:1984?

[Cornwallis]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices this stuff. Not that it will do any good. These kinds of "authoritative citations" are no better to me than what I used to hear "in the old days" - that is, "I heard it on TV so it must be true!"

Re:1984?

[NorQue]

Oh, Wikipedia is dead wrong in this case. According to Google 2 + 2 equals 4.

Re:1984?

[morgan_greywolf]

Here we go again.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Like all encyclopediae, it cannot be taken as a primary source of information. Der Spiegel is not a scholarly journal, either. It also cannot be taken as a primary source of information.

Bottom line: If you want to do real research, you need to go to primary sources. Calling something from Der Spiegel an authoritative citation is like calling something from The National Enquirer or Vogue an authoritative citation. Maybe the problem is that the Wikipedia editors think Der Spiegel is an authoritative source.

Re:1984?

[Mylakovich]

You missed the joke. It was pretty subtle, though.

Re:1984?

[Dog-Cow]

Der Spiegel is not a scholarly journal, either. It also cannot be taken as a primary source of information.

I take exception to the idea that only scholarly journals may be primary sources of information.

Your attitude sucks.

Re:1984?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottom line: If you want to do real research, you need to go to primary sources. [...] Maybe the problem is that the Wikipedia editors think Der Spiegel is an authoritative source.

For something as simple as the full name of a German public official, Germany's major news weekly really ought to be authoritative. What is a primary source for a person's name, anyway? Their birth cerificate? What would be a scolarly journal on that subject? Should I ask the librarian to subscribe us to Trends in German Public Officials' Names?

Re:1984?

[linhares]

I take exception to the idea that only scholarly journals may be primary sources of information. Your attitude sucks.

[citation needed]

Re:1984?

[owlnation]

So, um, what grade do you suppose you'll get in my class?

An unfair one. It's disturbing that you are in a position of power. You are obviously discouraging open-mindedness and creative thought. Many newspapers and journals are a valid source of information in many subjects. Obviously there needs to be caution with them, as there must be with ANY source, but newspapers are legally accountable.

An opinion piece in a newspaper isn't worth much, but an interview, with direct quotes for example, is. Newspapers are used all the time as sources for University level historical research. More than one newspaper is better of course.

I don't know what you teach, but you probably shouldn't be teaching. Der Spiegel is for the most part an ethical publisher, it's certainly exposed many things -- such as neo-nazism -- than other outlets have failed to find.

Re:1984?

[bhsx]

Here ya go!

Re:1984?

[mcgrew]

I take exception to the idea that only scholarly journals may be primary sources of information

Actually, scholarly journals can be sources of disinformation, too. It's happened before that researchers have gotten something wrong, then were quoted by other researchers in other papers. It has often gone full circle (and I wish I had a citation, but it's been a long time since I read about it).

There have been instances of respected newspapers using The Onion as sources, not realizing that fine news source is humor. The Onion must hate that, it would be like when you make a joke comment on slashdot and it gets modded as "insightful".

In Wikipedia's defence, I've complained about an edit I made after I became a cyborg in its entry about cataract surgery. I added information about the accomodating lens I had implanted in my eye, and it was quickly removed. I added it again and it was removed again. I gave up, and a few months ago I mentioned it here and someone encouraged me to try once more.

The entry finally stayed put, although someone changed the date that the FDA approved it from 2003 to 2004, despite the manufacturer's website says 2003 (I just now changed it to 2003, I wonder if it will stay?). I suspect that a different IOL manufacturer edited my edit out because the device is by far superior to any other IOL.

Kudos to Wikipedia. It is a great resource for satisfying curiosity; when I found I needed cataract surgery it was the first place I went. Same goes for when I had to undergo a vitrectomy (I wouldn't wish that procedure on my worst enemy).

It's also great for when you're turning old LPs and cassettes into CDs, you can copy and paste track titles into your burning software.

My dad gave me great advice when I was a kid: never believe anything you hear (or read) and only half of what you see.

Re:1984?

[schon]

Here we go again.

You mean with all the wikipedia apologists?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Like all encyclopediae, it cannot be taken as a primary source of information.

OK then, what do you suggest? Oh, that's right...

you need to go to primary sources.

You mean like the actual fucking person the article is about? Oh wait, Wikipedia doesn't consider the actual fucking person to be a "primary source"!

And therein lies Wikipedia's problem.

Re:1984?

[MrNaz]

Obviously we are referring to the loose kind of journalism one would find in Der Spiegel. The point that the GP was getting at, that you so flippantly deride, is that too many "researchers" these days are willing to use the first three results from a Google search as the sum total of their research into a topic. While Der Spiegel may be a reputable news outlet, one cannot generally take its articles as primary sources, and certainly not for the purposes of engaging in encyclopedic grade research.

I feel that Wikipedia needs to put in place policies that start selecting out those contributors who are unable to either engage in this level of research and those who are unable to produce encyclopedia grade writing. Many of the Wikipedia articles are, while informative and good as an introduction into a topic, very superficial and poorly written. Unsophisticated use of language is not a problem per se, however it can lead to ambiguity. The ability of a writer to consistently ensure that there is no other way their text could be interpreted is the difference between a mediocre researcher and a true scholar.

Oh, and for the record, an interview with direct quotes in a newspaper is *not* a primary source unless the newspaper states that the printed interview is the unabridged transcript of the interview. That is almost never the case. Newspapers almost always edit their interviews for brevity, language style and sometimes even content policy.

So your self-righteous indignation at his teaching standards are misplaced. It's not that he's unfair or too strict, its just that kids these days have become so spoiled by the easy access to lots of junk information that they have lost all understanding of what real research is.

Re:1984?

[MrNaz]

That analogy makes sense like baked clams on a toilet seat.

Re:1984?

[timeOday]

Right, it's not as if this type of event is new or unique. The Bush administration was caught a few times leaking information/lies to the press, which were published unsourced in reputable news outlets, then the administration cites the press in a press briefing or a public address.

Re:1984?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Wikipedia's policies should be altered at all.

It is what it is... an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. If you want an encyclopedia that _most_ people can edit, that is supposedly more reliable, where articles are analyzed with scrutiny and the aim is reliability, you can use Citizendium http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium . It was created by the co-founder of Wikipedia because he thought that there should be a more reliable Free Encyclopedia than Wikipedia.

The only thing that needs to be adjusted is how people see Wikipedia... or MAYBE their citation policy. Wikipedia is not the end-all be all and any facts that you get from it that you're considering publishing should be checked against their sources.

Re:1984?

[xappax]

Consider the exploits available if simply being John Doe made you an authoritative source on the "John Doe" article. You could delete anything negative in the article and back it up with "That didn't happen, and I should know." You can claim whatever false credentials you want, and cite yourself as asserting the claim.

Treating the subject as an authoritative source on themselves may seem intuitively obvious at first glance, but it can lead to a lot of problems.

I don't want to read an article about what John Doe claims about himself (because most of it is probably boring, and some of it is probably distorted), I want an article about what reasonably reliable third parties report about him.

Re:1984?

[eln]

If you want a well-researched and well-written encyclopedia, go buy the Encyclopedia Britannica.

If you want an encyclopedia that offers a good overview of a mind-bogglingly huge range of topics, visit Wikipedia.

Both of these things have their place. Stop trying to turn one into the other.

Re:1984?

[mdwh2]

I agree that there's nothing specifically wrong with Wikipedia here. The far bigger problem is the way that the media copy information from each other, and elsewhere, without checking any facts they quote. Given how, unlike Wikipedia, people are far more willing to treat the news as truth, this is very worrying.

The same circular referencing could happen between any other kind of source too - nothing special about Wikipedia.

The only difference here is that, thanks to Wikipedia's edit history, you can see the problem occurring. When it happens any other time, we don't even know it.

Der Spiegel is not a scholarly journal, either. It also cannot be taken as a primary source of information.

No, but it is a secondary source. This is a problem - what to do if secondary sources are wrong? Moving to primary sources doesn't help, as they could still be wrong. Also, not allowing secondary sources would mean that finding citations would be far harder.

I think the key point is attribution. When you see "Paris is the capital of England[ref Der Spiegel]", this is actually shorthand for "Der Spiegel states that Paris is the capital of England". Suddenly, it's clear that it's not Wikipedia that's making the false claim: the claim is clearly attributed to Der Spiegel.

And indeed, this problem occurred because Der Spiegel didn't state their references (like most media sources). Had they attributed the claim to Wikipedia, then it would be instantly clear not to use them as a source for Wikipedia. So the fault lies clearly with Der Spiegel, for making a false claim without attribution.

Re:1984?

[Rary]

You mean like the actual fucking person the article is about? Oh wait, Wikipedia doesn't consider the actual fucking person to be a "primary source"!

And therein lies Wikipedia's problem.

Quite true.

I'm mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Not by name, but by an old nickname (the same one I use for my username on this site). However, it's spelled incorrectly, mainly because it's quoting another website that also spelled it incorrectly. That website also states a bunch of "facts" that were made up as a joke, and the Wikipedia article repeats those "facts".

I can't correct the original website, but I can correct Wikipedia -- except that I'm not allowed to, because I can't actually provide a link that proves that I really do spell the name the way I do, or that the "facts" were made up. Plus, I think it's even against the rules to edit articles about yourself.

Therefore, both of the people out there who care about the content of this particular article will remain blissfully misinformed.

Re:1984?

[xappax]

Newspapers aren't expected to cite their sources because traditionally, they take responsibility internally for fact-checking everything and backing up whatever they print with their institutional reputation.

The problem is that not having to cite sources and having the authority of a huge, trusted institution behind them has made journalists very lazy. They can write almost anything they want, and it will be taken at face value.

Wikipedia allows newspapers to be used as reliable sources because of the traditional expectation that a newspaper will be accountable for its mistake should it print something wrong. Unfortunately, it seems that this expectation is too optimistic.

Re:1984?

[Moryath]

Obviously we are referring to the loose kind of journalism one would find in Der Spiegel.

Or the New York Times, or by CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN...

The point that the GP was getting at, that you so flippantly deride, is that too many "researchers" these days are willing to use the first three results from a Google search as the sum total of their research into a topic. While Der Spiegel may be a reputable news outlet, one cannot generally take its articles as primary sources, and certainly not for the purposes of engaging in encyclopedic grade research.

Which is a large reason Wikipedia is so shoddy: sources are taken on "reputation" and the arbitrary decision of what a "reliable source" is, usually as defined by whether or not (a) most of the left-winger edit warriors of Wikipedia agree with the source's conclusions and (b) whether anyone else can come up with something that passes the "reliable source" test to discredit it (interestingly vague; lies and nonsense have remained in Wikipedia sometimes for months because a "reliable source" said something wrong, a set of bloggers caught it and documented very well that it was wrong, but the left-wingers shouted it down, claimed the blogs were not "reliable sources", "No Original Research" when someone simply replicated the sources the blogs were using as proof that it was false, etc...)

I feel that Wikipedia needs to put in place policies that start selecting out those contributors who are unable to either engage in this level of research and those who are unable to produce encyclopedia grade writing.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policies are currently the reverse: they have a major problem with driving academics and good researchers away, and it doesn't help that those who are "unable to produce encyclopedia grade writing" instead wind up spending hours per day "reverting vandalism" and are eventually given admin tools.

Power corrupts: Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely: Petty Power corrupts all out of proportion. Wikipedia admins are the worst sort because they, and their power, are so petty. It doesn't help that they also routinely overestimate their own competence.

Many of the Wikipedia articles are, while informative and good as an introduction into a topic, very superficial and poorly written. Unsophisticated use of language is not a problem per se, however it can lead to ambiguity. The ability of a writer to consistently ensure that there is no other way their text could be interpreted is the difference between a mediocre researcher and a true scholar.

How to lie with statistics. Also, Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

Most wikipedia articles are not "informative and good as an introduction into a topic" - the sourcing is routinely biased, and important countersourcing ignored or minimized if included at all.

Re:1984?

[Moryath]

There have been instances of respected newspapers using The Onion as sources, not realizing that fine news source is humor. The Onion must hate that, it would be like when you make a joke comment on slashdot and it gets modded as "insightful".

But the best humor is humorous because it is insightful and witty. Compare an "all guys getting hit in the groin" show like America's Funniest Home Videos to some really, really good stand-up comedy, or to A Modest Proposal... nothing prevents something from being both insightful and humorous.

Re:1984?

[Ploum]

Wikipedia-fr is already affected from a long time in this article :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Gourg

It is stated that the "Fat_Gourg" has a fan club of thousands of people in France.

The fact is that the fact gourg started as a running joke on a website/forum after someone found this picture online. The game, between approximately 20 people, was to found the author of the picture. One of those 20 people was a regular wikipedia editor with a good record and created this page with false statement like "Thousand of people".

Ultimately, the fat gourg joke came to a journalist in UK who interviewed someone on the forum which, of course, putted some exageration and emphasis in his description. The journalist then wrote an article saying that "it was an huge phenomemon in France followed by thousands of people". This artcile was followed by a very small television reportage in the school of the child who drawed the Fat Gourg.

The article was then added as a source on Wikipedia.

I tried two or three times to correct that page but :
- a (otherwise) respected wikipedia editor which is part of the joke always undo my changes
- my version is now in conflict with all of the sources in the article (which are, in fact, comming from one and only one person)

So I look like a liar because Wikipedian the television and newspapers say something but, ultimately, nobody in France know about the Fat Gourg except a few tenth of people on a forum.

And yes, I feel that something is bad but I have no real solution.

Re:1984?

[Chris Burke]

That's odd. I always though America's Funniest Home Videos was an insightful commentary on inherent masculine insecurities, and the fear that no matter how strong and capable we may try to appear, someone will find and exploit our vulnerabilities and reduce us to the weeping man-child that we all secretly fear we are deep inside.

And that the someone will be a 1st grader with a whiffle-ball bat.

But maybe I'm reading too much into the show.

Re:1984?

[Hordeking]

Excuse me? Wikipedia is a lot worse than it is. (See article.)

So, to put this statement into perspective, you're saying that x!=x.

How could anything be anything other than what it is? Whatever it is, that is what it is, neither more, nor less, than what it is.

Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

Re:1984?

[PitaBred]

Except not really. Britannica is basically useless any more. It's not more accurate, it has less information, it's less current. ANY encyclopedia should only be regarded as a starting point for serious research. It's great for a quick relatively unimportant fact or to point you to some proper research but since Wikipedia is publicly editable the facts need cross-checking with a reputable source if you're going to use them as a basis for anything serious.

Nothing new

[wjh31]

This false fact cycle has been done plenty of times before. There was one recently-ish regarding a football team in some european championship, a british paper included a very silly false fact from wikipedia (something about the fans wearing wellies on their heads or something along those lines) and in a similar way, the cycle was closed. I cant remember the exact details, im sure someone will follow with a link

Re:Nothing new

[sam_handelman]

You're not kidding this is nothing new.

  The hebrew bible gets the order of Persian kings wrong. Josephus quotes list of Persian kings found in hebrew manuscript. Tada, the list of persian kings is independently verified!

  New technology enables this kind of thing to happen with amazing *speed*, but it always took careful consideration and scholarship to disentangle. If anything, having all those explicit timestamps makes this much easier in the information age, but the volume is probably greater than people can really process.

Re:Nothing new

[History's Coming To]

Not forgetting the fact that God (take your pick) doesn't meet the notability criteria...

Re:Nothing new

[bruthasj]

Yes. Right here: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1123229&cid=26811271

Re:Nothing new

[roystgnr]

Huh? I certainly thought that God had enough published secondary source material to qualify as notable by now. Even a best selling book, I've heard.

But then I looked deeper. It turns out that the authors of that book claimed to be working for God; in some passages they were even just taking dictation! I'm sorry, God, but autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.

The extent of this God person's attempts to get around the Wikipedia guidelines are mind-boggling, but I still haven't found anything about God that didn't look like it was rooted in self-promotion. Many of these authors are even brazen enough to admit it, and they claim that every single one of the other authors is another of God's children too. Unless someone can find a secondary source about God that wasn't written by God or by some "sock-puppet" God created, I'm afraid all those Wikipedia articles are going to have to be deleted for lack of notability.

He's lucky anyway

[Enleth]

Knowing what some journalists are capable (or rather incapable) of, I'd not be surprised if they had quoted him stating that his name is "Karl Theodor [citation needed] von un zu Guttenberg"...

He will just have to..

[Dynamoo]

He will just have to change his name so it matches Wikipedia. Problem solved.

This is a story?

[MyLongNickName]

I hate to bring this to the attention of the nerd community.... the world existed before the explosion of the internet. This is hard to believe, but true. I have it on good authority that the world started sometime in the 1920's.

That being said, this type of problem existed long before the internet "Person A" starts a rumor. Others pick up on it, and a reporter who talks to "Person A" gets his story confirmed by others who heard the story from Person A. Not new. Not news. The speed of things has definitely sped up in the last decade, but this happened also with the invention of the telephone, telegraph and television.

Also, another nice fact. Wikipedia is not your research center. It is a place to start. If you are using it as a source for your research paper, you should get an F.

Re:This is a story?

[Anonymous Coward]

The story isn't that Wikipedia isn't a source for research (as opposed to a starting point). The story is that supposedly reputable news organisations don't get this - that they blindly copy factoids from Wikipedia without checking them. And not just one or two, not just some, but pretty much ALL the major players (on the German market).

Of course, the fact that this involves Wikipedia really is not all that important indeed; it could just as well have been about some other site, or a rumour started elsewhere instead of on the Internet. But given the importance of the press for a democratic society, it's worrying that so little care is exercised there and that journalistic integrity, for the most part, has become a fig leaf to cover up the fact that it's all just about one thing anymore: making money.

Re:This is a story?

[bcmm]

Anyone who cites Wikipedia in a paper should fail, as everything even remotely contentious on Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up by a citation from a proper source. Wikipedia's use in writing papers is in telling you where to find material you can cite.

Not Wikipedia's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that Wikipedia provided bad info, or even that Wikipedia makes this kind of hoax easier. The simple fact underlying this kind of story is that using a single source for anything is extremely bad (scholarship, reporting, research, fill in the blank).

A much more interesting story (to me, at any rate) would be improved journalistic standards that use Wikipedia as a jumping-off point rather than The Font of All Wisdom.

ObPython

[Chris Tucker]

Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg, of Ulm.

People Fail

[MazzThePianoman]

Sounds more like a failure of investigative journalism, not Wikipedia.

Wiki is better

[delirium of disorder]

The media has always blindly repeated false information on a massive scale. The blunder referenced in the article actually shows us that Wikipedia helps the situation. We can see who makes edits and when they are made, so we can trace down these kinds of problems. The same media mistakes that have always happened continue to happen, but at least now we can know about them.

This is really simple to prevent...

[crt]

All they needed to do to prevent this was to ensure that the cited references pre-dated the original edit. If you can't find a reference that pre-dates the edit, then you have to assume it's possible that the reference came from Wikipedia itself.

Re:I also hear...

[internerdj]

Once upon a time when news outlets reported on news, they needed to protect some of their sources because some of the information could result in retribution on the source. To get sources to open up they promised confidentiality where appropriate and as time went on this became the culture: The news has source authority based on the assumption they are practicing good journalism. As information has recently accelerated, there is less time for good journalism and instead we have good-enough journalism but they still maintain a front of source authority.

Re:Wikipedia: a failed experiment

[Crumplecorn]

The experiment succeeded, most people just don't know how to interpret the results.

Who Takes Wikipedia Seriously?

[RobotRunAmok]

I mean, sure, if you need a handy re-cap of the fifth season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or a quick history of some server-side scripting language, you can't do much better than wikipedia: "by Geeks, for Geeks." But geo-politics? Current events? Stop. Wikipedia plays around in these and all areas, of course, but any student or journalist who uses it as source should be ridiculed, then shot.

Re:Who Takes Wikipedia Seriously?

[xappax]

First of all, chill. Nobody's stealing from Joss Wheedon on Wikipedia - synopses and frame grabs are so solidly fair use it's not even debatable. Well...maybe by the MPAA...

Secondly, Wikipedia is /very/ against infringing on the copyright of other sources. They're kind of paranoid about it, if you ask me. If you see non-fair use content that's from a copyrighted source and it upsets you (as it clearly does), just leave a note on the talk page pointing out the violation.

Keep in mind, of course, that it's possible permission for the copy has been granted. But if not, Wikipedia editors will remove it.

Re:Who Takes Wikipedia Seriously?

[Marcika]

You use the word "steal" a bit too enthusiastically, I think...

• Most wikipedia articles contain "stolen" content from IMDB? (I guess you mean copyright infringement?) Tag it, remove it, kill it with fire... Wikipedia doesn't want illegal content. (And I am fairly certain that "most" articles are fine, contrary to what you say...)
• Synopses breach the rights of creators? Don't make me laugh. It is now illegal to summarize the plot of a movie/TV series/book in your own words? CliffsNotes won't be happy to hear it...
• Creating highly-visible and extensive articles about Wheedon's work (as opposed to creating these articles on a niche fansite) is encouraging people to "steal"? Again, your leap of logic is dizzying me...

Sack the reporters

[SirGarlon]

The German and international press picked up the wrong name from Wikipedia -- including well-known newspapers, Internet sites, and TV news such as spiegel.de, Bild, heute.de, TAZ, or Süddeutsche Zeitung.

A reporter who quotes facts from Wikipedia, when those facts are not directly supported by another source (specifically, by a citation), should be fired. The job of a reporter is to obtain, verify, and evaluate information. For obtaining information, we now have Wikipedia and Google, which beat any newspaper for availability and breadth of coverage. So the remaining useful parts of the reporter's job are to verify and evaluate. A reporter who fails to do those has made himself obsolete. A middle-school kid could do the job of searching the Web and copying and pasting the findings together into an article (in fact, I understand that's how kids write research papers these days).

read it again?

[Mathinker]

The post you critique claims that Josephus quoted the Tanach, not the other way around.

WikiPedia does not strive for the truth

[SpinyNorman]

It's been pointed out on /. a number of times before, so I'm not going to dig up the link, but WikiPedia explicitly states that their standard of inclusion is not truthfulness but verifiability - and they are acknowledging the difference. Of course it's rather amusing when the truthless but verifyable (i.e. printed elsewhere) fact originated on WikiPedia itself, but it doesn't reflect a weakness in WikiPedia that you may interpret it to; this is the way that WikiPedia is meant to work (presumably for the simple reason that verifyability as defined is objective, whereas the absolute truth is much harder to nail down - who determines it?!).

Re:primary sources discouraged

[Random Walk]

The problem is that wikipedia itself discourages the use of primary sources by wikipedia authors. The reason they give is that using primary sources may lead to "original research", which is strongly discouraged as well.

email OTRS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia almost always avoids original research, because original research requires that they have staff on hand who will vet the information, and Wikipedia doesn't have the staff on hand to do this.

Biographical mistakes are one of the few cases where Wikipedia makes an exception. Please email OTRS, and they'll make sure that a trusted person reviews the information, and corrects the article. The fact that people who contact OTRS provide their email address (and possibly more contact info) means that you (for once) have more credibility than some random anonymous vandal.

You're ALL missing the point

[meist3r]

The terrible thing about this situation is NOT that the degrading print media and others took their information from Wikipedia which would expose their lack of journalistic precision.

What NO SINGLE FUCKING ONE has mentioned so far is that this guy has just been appointed minister of economic affairs in my country AND NO ONE KNOWS WHO HE IS for fuck sake. They all got his name(s) wrong because this guy hasn't achieved anything yet. They looked him up on Wikipedia because our awful government has just appointed a nameless aristocrat to the most important position in the state during times of an economic crisis.

That, my friends, I find far more disturbing than a few journalists looking up an unimportant guy with way too many names on Wikipedia.

obama inauguration estimate

[Straif]

Same type of 'fact checking' happened with the Obama inauguration estimate.

1) News papers reported an estimate of 2 million people.

2) Parks service (which stopped counting crowds after the Million Man March a few years back after their analysis was way below the politically correct estimate) quotes the newspapers.

3)When asked for verification of their numbers the newspaper points to the Parks Services numbers.

Most independant analysis of satellite photographs pegs the number at somewhere between 800k-1.2m ; including estimates for people in transit. Still a very impressive number but nowhere near the hyped multimillions the press had been pushing for weeks so essentially ignored.

The Washington Post did do a follow up piece which exposes some of the problems (after it was pointed out to them that they were the Parks Services source for the 1.8 figure in the first place) but even though they still headline the 1.8m figure it doesn't seem any of their other sources come withing 500k of that number.

In the new age of media, speed of data, and it's ability to match expectations, sadly far outweigh accuracy.