Whining About Wikipedia

Contrary to my earlier suspicions, it seems that John Seigenthaler did indeed change the article about himelf. I still wonder, though, how long he waited before doing so. Did the four months he mentions pass prior to his discovery of the misinformation, or did he sit on his hands for a while?

A recent CNET article brings another interesting point to light.

"Wales said the Seigenthaler article not only escaped the notice of this corps of watchdogs, but it also became a kind of needle in a haystack: The page remained unchanged for so long because it wasn’t linked to from any other Wikipedia articles, depriving it of traffic that might have led to closer scrutiny."

There are two very important bits of information in that paragraph.

1. No other articles linked to the Seigenthaler article. 2. The Seigenthaler article received little traffic.

In other words, it’s likely that very few people ever would have seen the article had Seigethaler not drawn attention to it, and it would have posed little danger to his reputation. I’m not saying he was wrong to draw attention to it. I’m only pointing out that he probably overstated the danger the article posed. Some might argue that it was caught just in time; if it had been linked to from other articles, the gossip would spread like a disease throughout Wikipedia and beyond. However, I think that if the article started getting significant traffic and was being cited elsewhere, one or more voices of reason would have appeared and corrected the article. Thus, the misinformation would not have lasted long. Anyone who would have used the bad article as their sole source of information (and thus been unaffected by the corrections) is a sloppy researcher, an idiot, and/or a rumor-monger anyhow, so the point of fixing a single bad article quickly for their benefit is somewhat moot.

As a result of this and another kurfuffle, new articles can no longer be published anonymously. It’ll be interesting to see what, if any, affect this new rule has on Wikipedia’s quality and reputation.

Meeting Mark Shea

MARK.JPGTonight I got to listen to fellow St. Blog’s parishoner Mark Shea speak. Some of his speech material came from his essay "The Critics Rave". It was a fun and interesting talk about countering the Church’s detractor’s questions with another question, "Who do you say that the Church is?", a play off of a question Jesus posed to the apostles.

After the talk, I introduced myself and chatted for a bit. I’m not entirely certain he actually knew what blog I write, but he was polite enough to pretend he did. 😉 I bought a copy of "Making Sense Out of Scripture" and got him to autograph it. Then Donna Lewis and I talked his ear off for almost as long as he’d lectured. Poor fella.

Anyhow, check out his blog and see what the fuss is all about. 🙂

Violating Inviolability

Last month, Daniel Nichols over at Caelum & Terra blogged an entry entitled An Open Wound, in which he shared the news of couple that he and his family knew and with whom had once been close having received an annulment. They had been married over twenty years and were blessed with nine children, whom they homeschooled. The couple had in all manner been devout, articulate, exemplary Catholics. After some amount of time, however, the wife left her husband and eventually applied for and obtained an annulment. An annulment is a finding from the Church that sacramental marriage, which Catholics hold to be unviolable, never happened. And Mr. Nichols’ reaction to this news, and any sane person’s reaction would have to be,

[I]f they can get an annulment, anyone can!

That the Church has come to this–providing excuses for sins against God and man–is a scandal, an open wound in the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy.

Continue reading

A Flawed And Irresponsible Research Tool

John Seigenthaler Sr. is mad.

"Between May and September of 2005, a biographical article on Seigenthaler carried by Wikipedia contained incorrect statements to the effect that he might have had some involvement in the assassinations of John and Robert F. Kennedy. The comment, added by an anonymous editor, prompted Seigenthaler to write an Op-Ed in USA Today on November 29, 2005, in which he wrote that "…Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool…[f]or four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin." Seigenthaler said that he had tried to determine the identity of the anonymous editor but had been unable to do so since "Congress has enabled them and protects them" — a reference to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which states "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker".[6]"

Continue reading