Wikipedia Hoax Author Confesses 377
cmholm writes "As reported in The Seattle Times, Nashville resident Brian Chase has publically admitted that he edited a Wikipedia entry for John Seigenthaler, making appear that Mr. Seigenthaler was involved in the assassination of JFK. Mr. Chase fessed up after a cyber-sleuth tracked down the business from which he had posted to Wikipedia."
Since when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhm (Score:2, Insightful)
Cybersleuth, indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Notable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
The problem is that many people believe that actions - including speech - shouldn't have consequences.
Re:Notable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Notable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech, by necessity, includes freedom after speech. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity.
In this particular situation, the speech involved counts as a stupid joke, or possibly a subtle political jab. If, instead, the relevant Wiki article had included concrete evidence that Bush and Blair lied to the world for the purpose of controlling the world Mango market, or a leaked internal memo showing the Diebold CEO deliberately made defective machines that gave extra votes to Libertarians - Would we still consider it an "abuse" of free speech, or exactly the reason we need free speech?
Yes, with free speech comes a certain degree of responsibility... On the part of the AUDIENCE. Charlatans and outright liers will always exist, and would even if we didn't have a 1st amendment in the US. Anyone who accepts a single Wiki entry as "proof" of ANYTHING deserves the ridicule they get when more skeptical readers point out the real facts.
Re:Digital signatures with GPG keys (Score:3, Insightful)
So much so about the crediblity of wikipedia...
On second thoughts, wouldn't wikipedia do well with a moderation system ?
Re:Notable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Free of consequences from the state.
With rights come responsibilities. They are intrinsically linked and inseparable. The problems come when people believe there is, or should be, no relationship between them.
Tipp: register to post anonymously (Score:5, Insightful)
If Mr. Chase had spent the 30 seconds or required to create a Wikipedia account (valid email address not required!) he would have stopped the "cyber-sleuth" (hah) in his tracks. Wikipedia seems to laboring under the apprehension that IP addresses are somehow anonymous, whereas they provide far more information to third parties than an account name does (unless the poster is savvy enough to use a reasonably anonymous proxy not blocked by Wikipedia).
How to use Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
In this respect Wikipedia is actually far more effient than any search engine, because ALL links will point to pages with information on the subject - filtering between 'good' and 'bad' webpages is quite straight forward. This approach will also give you a layer of redundancy which is required when doing good research on any topic.
Re:Notable quote (Score:3, Insightful)
You're attempting to shift responsibility of speech to the audience, not the speaker. That's blatantly wrong. No one has a right to say exactly what they want, when they want, and how they want 100% of the time without consequence . If I yell "Bomb" in an airport, can I tell the federal agents that have my neck in a knot that I was just trying to get to the front of the line?
We have a duty to understand the effects of the speech we make. While I agree that anyone who reads a Wikipedia article should take it with a grain of salt, that doesn't mean that persons who intentionally provide misinformation should not be held accountable.
You're the only person responsible for the words and ideas you convey; to suggest you can't be held accountable for it is simply asinine.
Unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)
My main dissapointment here, however, is that this will decrease the trust of the value of the information on Wikipedia. I have a few friends (these are geeks as well mind you) who don't trust Wikipedia because essentially, 'anyone can write there'. They beleive that there is not enough valid information there; Too much opinion. Of course my response is that even published encyclopedias can include bad information based on opinion. By giving a published encyclopedia no room for doubt we are opening ourselves up to beleif in error, just as we are by not using critical thought processes when reading a Wikipedia entry.
So back to my dissapointment. Stunts like this while both funny & stupid are also devaluing the otherwise fairly valuable content of Wikipedia.
-ME®
Re:Since when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is very useful and I use it myself for papers and research projects but it shouldn't be considered solid due to it's changable nature (articles get updated all the time, people can post wrong information etc).
By all means use wikipedia as an information resource, but also make sure that you another source that validates the information.
Re:Notable quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Not blatantly. Only in cases of fraud is there any reason to limit speech.
No one has a right to say exactly what they want, when they want, and how they want 100% of the time without consequence.
Yes, just 99% of the time, for most people.
If I yell "Bomb" in an airport, can I tell the federal agents that have my neck in a knot that I was just trying to get to the front of the line?
You bring up an interesting point, actually. Federal agents aren't required, any more than cops, to respond to you yelling "Bomb". By required, I mean by law. It is the simple case that federal agents and cops are there not to prevent crimes but to respond after the fact. This concept is even recognized in the court system, where only a person who has standing (ie, a person who has already been effected) can contest a law.
The fact that federal agents choose to respond and try to arrest you extends from the 4th amendment. That is, you shouting "Bomb" gives them probable cause to search you. But the second they discover you do not have a bomb, they have no basis to stop you from shouting "Bomb" to your hearts content. The same holds true for shouting "Fire" in a theater, except in this case the people who must determine if a fire exists are the audience.
Yes, courts have ruled that "eminent threat" is a justification for surpressing speech, yet it's clearly the case that "eminent threat" is purely a basis for a search. While it might have made sense, in the eyes of some judges, to punish those who caused stampedes to make people happy, clearly it's the case that today there is tons of regulation about fire exits, fire alarms, etc that mitigate the risk of shouting "Fire" anyways; I'd even be inclined to state that the stampedes killing people is a sign of faulty design and more a case of a civil case of wrongful death of the establishment than any legal wrong doing of the shouter--in a real fire, the same sort of stampede would have occured, so clearly at some point said owner would be sued anyways when a "real" fire occurred.
Now, having said all this, you might think I'm against holding individuals accountable. That's hardly the case. Instead, it should be recognized that theaters, airports, etc are private establishments. Those who do speak in ways that the proprietor does not like can be permanently banned and later charged with trespassing if they try to step on their property. Accountability over words are in most cases best handled through speech or already existing law--shunning, be it by family or businesses. While it might feel "great" to have a law for every asshole who yells out obscenities or yells vaguely threatening remarks, if it can be established that such people are no real threat, then there is no reason to stop them from speaking. If neighborhoods do not want outsiders yelling on their streets, they should own them so they can kick people out.
It is the simple fact that societal constraints backed by property law are able to keep 95%+ of the people from doing clearly criminal acts (2-3% of people are in jails, so I'm giving a wide margin of error). People should be accountable for their speech. That doesn't mean there should be laws to specifically hold them accountable.
Re:Uhm (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a recording of a slander slander or libel?
Is a public reading of a libel libel or slander?
Re:Uhm (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't "any information" an unusual way to spell "obscenity and pornography"?
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Notable quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Notable quote (Score:3, Insightful)
The same goes in speech. You are responsible for what you say. Your yell "Bomb" in an airport example creates a clear and present danger, and represents a situation in which the listeners do not have time to evaluate the veracity of the statement.
In a case like this, where there is no imminent danger, the audience does have a responsibility to think critically about the statement. It does not absolve the speaker/writer from his responsibility for what he says, but as someone a few posts up said, there are always going to be Charlatans and others saying false things who don't care about their own responsibilities. The listener must, therefore, think before just accepting what he/she hears as fact. If you want an example of what happens when listeners don't think critically, just look at American politics. There are groups of people who will believe whatever a Republican or Democrat say because they support one party over the other. There is a group of people who believe Al Gore said he "invented the internet" and that John Kerry was dishonest about his service in Vietnam. John McCain supposedly has an illegitimate, black daughter. The speaker/writer most definitely has responsibilities, but the listener cannot assume the speaker/writer is being responsible and therefore has the responsibility to think critically. Unfortunately, many abdicate that responsibility, as well.
Strong Position (Score:2, Insightful)
You have a very strong position here and I wanted to let you know that I found your statements on freedom of speech very compelling. The responsibility for freedom of speech is indeed on the part of the audience, and not the orator. Each human being is a liar once; nobody is perfect. Our mission is not to be perfect; it's to handle and understand why we are NOT perfect. When we can achieve that level of understanding, we can become truly evolved and perhaps then we could be within reach of the lofty utopian goals discovered and idolized by our ancestors. The guy who pranked Wikipedia did it as a joke... but people found out who he was because in American society, slander is punishable regardless of the medium. The thing is -- there is no slander on Wikipedia because it's impossible to prove that it's a reliable source of information -- anyone can edit any article, so there must be a high level of speculation on any post.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to have a launch pad for information... not actually keep it locked down as factual. Think something? Post it. Someone will either edit it or not. If they find something they want to add, let them. The end product is a plethora of great info that should be double-checked before it's used for anything imporant. Fact checking is required when citing Wikipedia in any kind of formal essay. It's a great place to START an essay, but it's a lousy reference. Therefore even if Seigenthaler wanted to sue Chase (and Seig] has announced he does *not* want to do so because Seig] believes in freedom of speech), Seig] couldn't win.
Re:Since when... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a way its true though, since we all know this site is especially fanatic about those above topics, so any speech written against them *is* flamebait when you take audience into account. However this doesnt say much for fair and ubiased communication on slashdot, does it?
I dont have karma to burn, so Im a coward ;) Think of it as reaffirming foucault in Discipline and Punish, where the norm is the opinions of slashdot and moderation reinforces those norms by punishing people who do not agree with the "norm" opinion of slashdot.
Re:Cybersleuth, indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
So? News flash, buddy:
Not everyone who gets attention deserves it.
Not everyone who deserves attention wants it.
You're acting as if recognition and attention were the main reasons people hack on F/OSS software. It isn't, and never has been. If it's attention you want, you're better off candidating for some reality-TV show.
Lot more work goes into making GCC capable for professional work than hacking decss together [keep in mind most incarnations of decss tools were CRAP for the longest while at first].
Thing is, most don't really care for broad recognition. That's not why they're doing it. I don't see what your problem is? Jealousy?
(FWIW, I've got ~45k LOC in libgcj at last count, and as far as I'm concerned, DVD-Jon can have all the spotlight he wants.)
Re:Tipp: register to post anonymously (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:stop making fun of wikipedia. (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh sweet Jesus... watch now as the "Wikipedia process" makes a total fool of itself again. Watch in horror as legitimate Wikipedia editors defend this article on the basis that it is "notable" because of the noise it created. In the best case, enough editors will be pissed off about the "hoax" that they will come out to vote delete and it'll only hang around for a week. In the worst case... watch as at least one week goes by while everyone sits around and wanks off about democracy and "the process"... watch in horror as idiot admins defend it... watch in disgust as the VFD turns out as a no consensus and yet another week goes around in the nightmare Kafka-esque Wikipedia process while this shitty worthless article remains. In the worst case, it'll go around and around half a dozen times until it gets an immunity from deletion (any Wikipedia editor knows which article I'm hinting at here).
I used to be a regular wikipedia editor -- I used to care and make an effort. Now I'm just seriously disillusioned with it all. It's just filling up with shit faster than genuine editors with an interest in making something other than a dumping ground for crap and vanity trivia can clean it up.
By saying that, you too are being hypocritical (Score:3, Insightful)
And THEN you have the asshole moderators. That the GP got modded up is proof that there are conscientious mods who counter-modded the idiot who modded it down.
So please stop accusing the mass of Slashdotters of hypocrisy. You're treating a crowd as an individual and criticising its aggregate of viewpoints. If that isn't hypocritical, I don't know what is.
What makes you think he was trying to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
He did it as a joke. He thought it was inconsequential. He wasn't trying to construct some elaborate consipiracy to implicate the other guy for the assassination. He was basically doing the equivalent of changing the screensaver on computers at Best Buy to say "SpideyCT is cool". It is funny to be able to do something so simple, and because it reaches such a large audience, looks like you did something special.
So yeah, he could have covered his tracks better, but I bet it never occurred to him to try. Why would it? In fact, if he had tried to cover it up more, it would have looked like he was trying to cover it up, suggesting that he thought he was doing something he could get in trouble for.
Exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tipp: register to post anonymously (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia actually states on its own "Why create an account? [wikipedia.org]" page that registering gives more anonymity.
Re:Wkipedia: The Information Fascists (Score:2, Insightful)
If you apply that argument to other rights ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech, by necessity, includes freedom after speech. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity.
Let's see what happens with that claim if applied to other rights:
"Freedom of religion, by necessity, includes freedom after sacrificing a captured non-believer. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"Freedom of the press, by necessity, includes freedom after deliberatiely publishing libelous stories that destroy a victim's livelyhood, family, and personal relations. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"The right to keep and bear arms, by necessity, includes freedom after fatally shooting unamred victims in the back. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
"Freedom of association, by necessity, includes freedom after creating a criminal gang and leading in an ongoing pattern of criminal activity, including murders, robberies, and extortion. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
And so on.
Sorry, the only true part of your claim is that: "In the real world, that usually requires anonymity."
Freedom of speech says the government can't make a law blocking you from speeking. It does not mean it can't make it a crime to deliberately or negligently cause harm others using false claims (that you KNOW to be false) as the instrument.
If, instead, the relevant Wiki article had included concrete evidence that Bush and Blair lied to the world for the purpose of controlling the world Mango market, or a leaked internal memo showing the Diebold CEO deliberately made defective machines that gave extra votes to Libertarians - Would we still consider it an "abuse" of free speech, or exactly the reason we need free speech?
IANAL, but as I understand it:
- Truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel.
- The standard to prove libel is higher for "public persons", such as celebrities (who voluntarily chose to make their living from their noteriety) or politicians, than for ordinary citizens. (In particular (if I have this right), negligence is no longer an issue and the plantif must show malace and/or deliberate falsehood.)
- The standards are essentially insurmountable when discussing elected officials or political issues. (Thus pundits, and political opponents, can take cheap shots, repeat outrageous and provable lies for years, or accuse their opponents of their own (but not their opponents) sins, in complete immunity. The effectively only need to answer to the "court of public opinion", not to a court of law.)
Yes, with free speech comes a certain degree of responsibility... On the part of the AUDIENCE. Charlatans and outright liers will always exist, and would even if we didn't have a 1st amendment in the US. Anyone who accepts a single Wiki entry as "proof" of ANYTHING deserves the ridicule they get when more skeptical readers point out the real facts.
The same can be said of the news media, commercial encyclopedias, printed books, scholarly journals, and every human being whose opinions and stories you pay attention to. Different institutions and different individuals deserve different levels of trust. Even the SAME individual or institution deserves different levels of trust on different subjects (or even at different times in their lifetime or history).
If you have a medical question, do you trust your doctor, your lawyer, the head of your IT department, or your auto mechanic when their opinions diverge? If you have a question regarding risk-benefit ratio of gun ownership, do you trust articles in a medical or a criminology journal when THEY diverge? And so on.
But that in no way absoves the author or speaker of THEIR responsibility - especially when they deliberatly construct and publish falsehoods that harm some particular victim.
Re:Since when... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Since when... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia is not and never will be an authoritative source on anything. It's the very nature of the beast that makes all information found there suspect. Anyone who uses wikipedia as an authoritative source is a fool.
Anonymity is not necessary, and only leads people to act irresponsibly.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and I'd guess that more people would find them a better source on the value of anonymity than some guy posting on slashdot.
Max
Re:If you apply that argument to other rights ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically, your examples do more to support my point than refute it. In every example you make, you provide outcomes that break other laws. And yes, to do so with impunity would require complete anonymity. But let's consider them individually:
"Freedom of religion, by necessity, includes freedom after sacrificing a captured non-believer." - I have the right to believe anything I want. That right doesn't extend to breaking (most) other laws, regardless of how much I may "believe" I need to.
"includes freedom after fatally shooting unamred victims in the back" - Ditto. I have the right to bear arms. That doesn't equal the right to commit cold-blooded murder.
"freedom after creating a criminal gang and leading in an ongoing pattern of criminal activity" - The fact that I can hang out with whomever I (and they, reciprocally, with me) want does NOT mean that we can just do whatever we want while exercising our right "peaceably to assemble".
"freedom after deliberatiely publishing libelous stories that destroy a victim's livelyhood" - I put this one last because it comes the closest to freedom of speech, so I'll elaborate the most on it.
Every week, the National Enquirer publishes hundreds of stories that range from true-but-odd to total fiction to bordering-on-libel. But, the secret here that you've missed - No one believes them! Why not? Because they publish what basically amounts to fiction, stretched-truths, and lies. Thus, no one's career will end because the Enquirer calls them a gay bestial pedophiliac. If the NYT made the same claim, people would at least listen seriously, because the NYT, as a non-anonymous entity, has a reputation for usually reporting the truth. How long would they keep that reputation if they made such claims frivolously?
By the same idea, even an "anonymous" person has a limited reputation... Although I don't harbor any delusions that someone couldn't connect my Slashdot account "pla" to my IRL identity, I'll use that as an example. I have established, on Slashdot for this handle, a fairly good reputation. If I post something, I get a +1 for generally good karma, and 95 people (currently) give a boost to the score of what I post (while 21 people don't want to hear it). If I suddenly started posting nothing but trolls and inflamatory posts, my karma would plummet, my friends would vanish, and my freaks would increase rapidly. I would no longer have any credibility on Slashdot.
And if I always posted as "Anonymous", which basically means I have no established credibility? Well, personally, I almost totally ignore those posts, and I expect others do the same. Occasionally one will get modded up (which amounts to a form of one-shot granting of credibility) and I'll consider the point presented, but for the most part, "truly" anon posters just don't exist in my SlashWorldView.
Truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel.
True (AFAIK), but not against "risk to national security". And on some topics, "truth" doesn't apply, but raising the ire of certain groups poses a direct threat to the speaker (Falun Gong in China; "Speaking as an abortion doctor"; "The Don sent him to sleep with the fishes"; etc).
But that in no way absoves the author or speaker of THEIR responsibility,
I think you (and others) may have taken my assertion the wrong way. I agree that a speaker/writer has a responsibility to speak the truth - But that responsibility impacts their own credibility. At the same time, nothing will ever prevent some people from lying to and/or about you. So ultimately, the responsibility for how you react to "free" speech rests on you, not the speaker.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean a right to an audience.
Re:Wkipedia: The Information Fascists (Score:3, Insightful)
That's called bias, and Wikipedia, at least in some areas, reflects certain biases rather badly.
However, as someone else pointed out, it shouldn't be anyone's final source of truth, but rather a starting point. It has good references (although in the changes I submitted, not only were they thrown out but so was my reference - as non-existent - even though a second's Google would have proved the existence of the reference as it was on sale at Amazon).
Wikipedia is a great experiment and a great resource. It's biggest danger is that people take it as the final answer. But then, far too many people take the main stream media as the final answer also, which is why they have so much power.
Re:True BUT a "real" encyplopedia has a building (Score:2, Insightful)
You can, in fact, prove that the earth revolves around the sun (of course it's all relative to your POV, but you can prove what most people mean when they say the earth revolves around the sun). It's just a matter of some astronomical observations with your naked eye and a little ptolemaic math.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)