Sacha Baron Cohen Wikipedia Entry Creates Circular References 234
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."
Accountability (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...
Ronnie Hazlehurst (Score:5, Interesting)
This has in fact happened before. When Ronnie Hazlehurst [wikipedia.org] 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.
Not the first time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It is not a source... (Score:2, Interesting)
Setup? (Score:5, Interesting)
A citation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Not just wikipedia (Score:5, Interesting)
So it just isn't Wikipedia that needs to be careful.
Nothing new to see here... move along....
It's ok (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Accountability (Score:3, Interesting)
And as an example:
- "common sense" needs to be defined or eliminated altogether (the vast majority of people do not have 'common sense' IMHO, or do they mean 'common consensus'?)
- "editorial judgment" is just judgment. Without accountability such judgment is meaningless (I'm not just speaking of pseudo-anonymous administrators, but of the Big Guy [Jimbo] himself). Of course we need to define 'accountability' as well. With anonymous and pseudo-anonymous postings allowed this can be difficult, but I don't think it would be impossible. I think if I racked my creative side I could come up with some rules, like for example those people who are administrators should supply credentials (to the executives at least; of who they are and what their credentials actually are [especially if they are making false claims in the discussion area]).
It's a trap! (Score:3, Interesting)
reference count > 0 FOREVER! (Score:4, Interesting)
You people don't seem to realize what has happened. Reality is now referring to Wikipedia. In other words, something appears on Wikipedia, and then several days later, the same thing appears in reality!
Presently, since Mr. Baron-Cohen's Wikipedia entry has become capable of influencing events, and since effectively his "reference count" will never go below one...
At least, that's what some would argue happens when an information-theoretic singularity occurs. Others, however, think the very fabric of information itself will somehow be "torn," and that the self-referencing article will begin collapsing on itself, drawing in nearby articles and bending all their references in its direction. All too soon, they say, every article on Wikipedia will refer to the article on the hapless Mr. Baron-Cohen. They, and he, and all of us, will be swallowed up completely! Unlike in a real black hole, however, we may survive, only to find ourselves in a world in which every fact bears somehow upon Mr. Baron-Cohen. He will become as our God, then.
Terrifying.
Wikipedia needs a reset (Score:4, Interesting)
The entire project should be shut down, and started over, taking on board the criticisms that have been levelled at it over the years.
The concept is solid. If it wasn't the thing wouldn't work at all, or certainly not for this long and this successfully. The problem is in the details of how the community functions, or rather fails to function. It has become defensive and territorial, and has established its own POV which lies at the mean of community opinion but is quite libertarian-orientated and US/Western centred compared with the user base (theoretically, everyone).
The fact that this bias is a direct reflection of the founder of Wikipedia (An American libertarian) shows that the system does not function correctly to remove personal prejudice from the content. Despite the vast army of editors who contribute, Wikipedia hasn't gone beyond being a mouthpiece for Walesism.
Perhaps I am being uncharitable. Wales' beliefs are hardly far from the mainstream of techies - who are usually freedom-minded folk but have to by necessity follow a belief system that permits their relatively privileged position in life - however an encyclopaedia isn't a Linux distro. It has to be directed to everyone and thus it can't afford to get bogged down in the personal opinions of Wales or the techie community.
Nothing I have said here will come as a surprise to Wikipedians, seeing as these issue are mentioned by the project itself. However, my experience as an editor has shown a huge gulf between Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia reality.
Re:Accountability (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not some secret Wiki Cabal that is somehow misleading people into thinking that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's the goddamn mission [wikipedia.org]. You can have an intelligent discussion about whether or not Wikipedia is doing well to meet that mission but you can't possibly argue that the "free content encyclopedia" project should stop calling itself an encyclopedia.
You are right about one point though, it's true that in many ways the Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are not comparable. For example, the Sacha Baron Cohen article on Wikipedia had some faulty information about his employment history for awhile. On the other hand, the Sacha Baron Cohen article in the Encyclopedia Britannica DOESN'T EXIST.