Spanish TV Channels Vandalize Wikipedia 182
strider2004 writes to tell us that Barrapunto, a Spanish tech news site, has outed two TV stations in Spain, one public and the other private, for engaging in Wikipedia vandalism for the sake of a story. (The link is in Spanish; Google translation here.) The public station introduced falsehoods into the Wikipedia entry for John Lennon; the private one vandalized the Elvis Presley entry. Both stations said they were performing an "experiment" to check the reaction time of Wikipedia. Both articles were promptly corrected by other editors.
Update: 08/19 13:01 GMT by KD : Barrapunto is not affiliated with Slashdot.
Update: 08/19 13:01 GMT by KD : Barrapunto is not affiliated with Slashdot.
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is news?
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
Bueno, fue hecho con una computadora...
ordenador... (Score:2)
It's ordenador, not computadora.
We're talking about Spain.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
One can only assume this is modded "Interesting" rather than "Funny" because some moderators find it interesting that some Slashdot commentators actually have a sense of humour...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait ..... (Score:1)
"(Spanish Slashdot) has outed two TV stations in Spain..."
How on Earth can two television stations be of homosexual leanings? Also since when was the Spanish Slashdot site an authority on these things? Guess those Spanish speaking nerds just know something we all don't...:)
Re:Wait ..... (Score:5, Funny)
Vandalizing wikipedia is gay.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Vandalizing wikipedia is gay.
Properly vandalizing wikipedia would be. But these TV stations are just wannabees!
If you want your vandalism to stick, become smarter. Either pick lesser known subjects (John Lennon and Elvis Presley are just too high-profile: these are well-watched, and anyting funny will be corrected within minutes). Or, if you absolutely must pick well-known subjects, at leas be smarter about it:
One way would be to make more than one change, using more than one username (I hope you made one of these? "Anonymous IP"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
If you're taught Spanish in the US, you're likely taught Mexican (or Latin American -- not actually sure as some South American Spanish sounds a lot like Spanish -er Spanish to me) pronunciation.
One of the biggest differences is that the letters 'c' and 'z' don't sound like the 's' in Spain though they do in Mexico; Spaniards pronounce them like the English "th". For instance, the Spanish word for shoe is "zapato".
a Mexican person pronounces it sort of like: "saw-paw-toe"
a Spanish pers
Re: (Score:1)
Neither do ways of saying nor sayings have any easy interchange between the dialects...
Best example would be the comparison of Amer
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, 'bar' could mean 'slash', and 'punt' sounds like 'point' (dot)
Another Brick In The Wall (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fine to let people contribute, but most articles need to be locked down when they are completed, and then you submit stuff to be added for peer review or something. There is no reason why 8 year old Johnny needs to be editing the live version of a page on something he knows nothing about.
Is there enough new information on Elvis arriving, that his page needs to be open to live submissions from anyone 24/7/365?
Re: (Score:2)
There will be as soon as I catch up to his spaceship!
-:sigma.SB
disclaimer: this post contains facetiousness, which is known by the state of California to cause miscarriages in lab giraffes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another Brick In The Wall (Score:5, Insightful)
The openness is the reason wikipedia succeeded. Not because being open gives better content, but because being open gives more content, and more content makes it valuable to more people, and being valuable to more people gives them more editors, and more editors usually gives better content.
Also, you're forgetting: any page with regular vandalism does get locked down.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the default browsing mode of wikipedia for casual users should be pages that are known to be safe and factual. For those that want it, have the working copy that can be promoted to the default page when it's time.
Who decides what's safe and factual? (Score:2)
Really, how do you decide? What do you reference to to decide?
Keep it open and flat as it is now. The moment you start putting restrictions on you'll lose contributors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another Brick In The Wall (Score:4, Insightful)
How would you define completed? Very few articles can claim to contain every piece of knowledge about the subject. There is always room for more, so locking down anything permanently would be a horribly bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
You open what is supposed to be all the world's knowledge combined in a site, except that the policy is to treat it like a public bathroom. That's fine, but why is it news every time someone gets caught taking a shit in it?
It's fine to let people contribute, but most articles need to be locked down when they are completed, and then you submit stuff to be added for peer review or something. There is no reason why 8 year old Johnny needs to be editing the live version of a page on something he knows nothing about.
Is there enough new information on Elvis arriving, that his page needs to be open to live submissions from anyone 24/7/365?
I don't understand why your post is modded as insightful.
Everybody can have an idea of a good website. The merit of the Wikipedia is that it is very important for a lot of people, as is.
There is nothing stopping you from creating a non editable wikipedia, you could even use the content that is already there.
The power of the Wikipedia is that its rules are set by someone smarter than you, and with more vision. Anyone can make a comment like yours. The thing that is brilliant about the Wikipedia is that is h
I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention the usual witty commentary we've all come to know and love, time and again, but in spanish:
- Imagínate un enjambre Beowulf de estos!
- Esa no es una luna, es una estación espacial!
- En Rusia Soviética, Wikipedia te vandaliza a TI!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ay, un gato malodoro!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I didn't know that one.
PS. I just want you all to know how great it feels being back on a proper *nix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I didn't know that one.
Maybe you were joking, but I thought it was funny that I recognized ONE word ("luna" --> "moon"), and immediately realized what the phrase was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
http://barrapunto.com/~Ambiguous+Puzuma [barrapunto.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
The experiment was already done before (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The experiment was already done before (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the Colbert Report is not on Spanish TV?
Fair's fair (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Investigative journalism vs. vandalism (Score:2)
Vandalising a wall with something relatively permanent is a different issue to this kind of investigation, though
Re: (Score:2)
Why you try to mess with me, ese? (Score:1)
Terrorists place bombs in Spanish TV offices (Score:5, Funny)
Spanish version of slashdot? (Score:1)
barrapunto - not just for nerds (Score:5, Funny)
What does that make them, the spanish Drudge Report?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:barrapunto - not just for nerds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Er..."friqui" (probably an adaptation from the english 'freaky') it's a good substitute IMO.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention it's also an anglicism for "Free Kick" in football.
Re: (Score:2)
Response times depend on the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Response time for vandalizing Sonic Hedgehog [wikipedia.org] - 8 days
Response time for vandalizing Sonic the Hedgehog [wikipedia.org] - 8 seconds
Re: (Score:2)
Sonic the hedgehog is an article a lot of people have enough info about to be able to pull it back into shape. On the other hand SHH isn't.
Response time will depend on the depth of knowledge required to maintain an article, some are simple, some are still within the knowledge domain of the wider community who are interested in that field and some can only be edited by experts in their field. SHH being a good example of the latter.
(Assuming the vandalism wasn't just sticking a very obvious bit of
Ah yes. (Score:4, Informative)
Spanish Ads (Score:3, Funny)
I think it's the first time an advertisement has ever made me want to buy something, particularly when I have no clue what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
(I agree with its arguments)
In the end, most users at Barrapunto [barrapunto.com] are also usual suspects^W./'ers [slashdot.org] (the spanish side it is interesting as it is focused on local events, politics, it's written in spanish -the english is still a handicap for many here in Spain- etc.; although, it has to be noted that Barrapunto is tiny in comparison to Slashdot, as the second has a huge community -receives worldwide contributions-).
A recurrent motto, as a joke, is "B
Why the outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
This was minor public vandalism, of a kind the community sees every day, and a kind that it was built to correct. If they had launched a systematic campaign to spread disinformation throughout many articles, that would be a serious problem, but changing the date of Lennon's death to 2007 instead of 1977? If edits like that caused Wikipedia any kind of damage, it would have died years ago.
questions on vandalism aside (Score:2)
I guess the public ran of the steam of the Wikipedia anonymous fixing by corporate bastards, and now feels the need to pick on whatever left of the story. That is what exactly what traditional media does by be
In the name of science (Score:4, Funny)
"Both stations said they were performing an "experiment" to check the reaction time of Wikipedia."
Maybe someone should perform an "experiment" to test the stability of that TV station's websites.
Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If these stations insist that such experiments are ok, perhaps someone should suggest to them that hammering a spike through the transmission line of their tower might be just as reasonable. You know, just to check their reaction time. After all, after the fuses and output devices are replaced, it'll be as good as new, eh? :-/
Re: (Score:2)
If you are working on a project that needs reliable info to the point that wrong info would be as catastrophic as "hammering a spike through the transmission line", then you shouldn't be using wikipedia. Go and do the research yourself.
On a related note, I hate when people complain that wikipedia has an entry that is wrong. If that's the case, change it!
Re: (Score:2)
You never know how damaging wrong info will be to someone, do you? Vandalism is vandalism. That's my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, someone is hurt by incorrect information, and you think that's ok because they weren't using sources up to your standards? Not everyone understands what wikipedia is. You're not in a position to inform everyone of how to do research or look up something of interest to them (like a bio) correctly, are you? You're also not in a position to evaluate the emotional and/or financial impact of a wikipedia article, are you? As that's the case, you're also not in a position to deliver an authoritative blanket c
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is just a smaller version of the internet, especially now that websites are so cheap and blogs are so common.
Not only are students (in the UK at least) told not to use google/wikipedia when researching essays but there is software with complex algorithms to check that essays aren't from the internet.
If correct facts are that important then you will know not to use the internet for your research.
All my arguments apply to the internet as much as wikipedia.
As for hurting people, I am not
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephencol
"BEFORE YOU POST HERE: Please realize that this user was NOT blocked for vandalism, joking, or 'poking fun at Wikipedia'. This user was banned for violation of Wikipedia's Username policies which state that "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people" are inappropriate and should be indefinitely blocked until confirming evidence (in this case, from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central) shows that this is, in fact, Stephen Colbert. Although Mr. Colbert 'made the edits on national television', he was also joking and it is not at all certain if he was in fact the person who made the edits attributed to this account. Until the blocking administrator (Tawker) receives word from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central that this is Mr. Colbert, this account will remain blocked."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A wiki is an online medium that contains information that anyone can edit. A wall is a surface people are generally not supposed to write on regardless of the correctness of the information. I don't have any idea how spray paint got into this, spray paint is permanent, editing text is not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia is an online dictionary. People aren't generally supposed to edit it to contain outright lies on purpose. They can do so, but then again, they can write on walls.
Really ? I must look into it the next time
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, anyone can add anything to it. There is no law against changing anything on wikipedia. In fact, changing an entry of a well known topic to see how quickly it gets changed back is an extremely good way to measure the "efficiency" of something like wikipedia.
It's much like the practice of deliberately introducing a number of bugs into code to measure how well a programmer catches bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Red neck response (Score:5, Funny)
It is for sufficiently large values of Mexico.
Re: (Score:1)
Local FOX News translation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Local FOX News translation (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have watched it, but it was after 11:00 PM and I still didn't know where my citations were.
I'm not too worried though; I hear NBC is showing To Revert an Editor later this week.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Need Disclaimer (Score:5, Informative)
General Disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_di
Which links to the specific disclaimers:
Risk disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_discl
Medical disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_di
Legal disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Legal_disc
and
Content disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_di
Re: (Score:2)
If they were prominently explicit at the top of the page in plain view, people would stop taking Wikipedia seriously. And that is a GOOD thing. Then, and only then, will it become a useful tool.
Although seriously curtailing the power and activities of its moderators would also add trust and value too admittedly. Nobody likes Netzis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exists, but is actually tweakers.net [tweakers.net].
And, IMO, nowhere near as good as Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://slashdot.jp/ [slashdot.jp]
Even closer to the original then Barrapunto (Color scheme and icons). But no, that pole doesn't have a "kaubooi niiru" option on it, either (Slashdot won't let me post this in Katakana
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot to mention, for those interested, the tag line is:
"Arege na nyuusu to zatsudan saito"
Which means
"Arege* News and Idle Chat site."
*Arege seems to be something they made up themselves. It's spelled in Katakana (the alphabet used for foreign words, spelled close-to phonetically) and used as an adjective. At first I thought it meant "Aggregate" but some after looking at some sites that popped up in google [google.com] I don't think that's the case any more. It might be som
But that's what Wikipedia is by design... (Score:2)
Although the reported activities of course