Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused

Yes, Wikipedia is fallible. By it's very nature it's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness. However this just strengthens the idea that the system works.

Quote:

At 10:06 a.m., Wikipedia's entry for Lay said he died "of an apparent suicide."

At 10:08, it said he died at his Aspen, Colorado home "of an apparent [[heart attack] or suicide.]."

Within the same minute, it said the cause of death was "yet to be determined."

At 10:09 a.m., it said "no further details have been officially released" about the death.

Two minutes later, it said: "The guilt of ruining so many lives finally [sic] led him to his suicide."

At 10.12 a.m., this was replaced by: "According to Lay's pastor the cause was a 'massive coronary' heart attack."

Six minutes. It took six minutes from the time someone posted wrong information to the time that it was corrected. This does nothing but prove that the self-policing style of wikipedia does, infact, work. Had the information stayed up for weeks, I can see where there would be an issue. However it took less time to correct this, fairly major, news story than it would take me to make a sandwich.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by DATAGONK

And what if someone accessed that page during those six minutes, and didn't go back? They would come out with the wrong idea, perhaps even that he killed himself because he felt guilty. That's bad journalism.

The main point I think the original article was getting at is that in journalism, you are responsible to get the story right the first time so your readers don't get the wrong impression. Printing a lie about someone is called libel. It's a real crime. Look it up.

RacinReaver: Thanks. I've heard the term used before, but was never given a clear definition. The more you know.

Then I revert to my original claim that Wikipedia is indeed, fallible.

Yes, if someone acessed the page in those six minutes, they would have been misinformed. However my entire point is that it took only six minutes, and thus an extremely small amount of activity viewed said page, before it was corrected. It may have been wrong for six minutes, but it will be right for the rest of Wikipedia's existence. The self-policing style that Wikipedia is built upon has proven itself to work.

The fact still remains though, is that it's not journalism. Like Kalekkan said, it's more of an information archive. If you want journalism, head on over to Wikinews which uses the same format. Which managed to get it right. There is not a single edit that says it was suicide. Hell, the first edit simply says "He is dead. No more details." They did get it right.

Ofcourse no one should ever source Wiki when writing a term paper. But for finding out which one of the Starjammers was Cyclops' father (Corsair), who wrote the French National Anthem (Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle), or what the name of Hitler's German Shepard was (Blondi) , it's a great source.

And I really could do without the quasi-legal lesson. No one brought it up, so your calls to "look it up" are quite unfounded. But if you really want to go that way, technically libel isn't simply printing lies about a person. It's printing lies about a person that damages ones character or reputation. If someone wrote that I was the first person to land on the moon, that wouldn't be libel. If someone wrote that I molested goats, that would be.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Given that the system is powered by the gerbil wheel known as the internet user - thats really nothing to bolster one's argument.

Wiki does not work because it's open to everyone. Of those supposed 13,000, how many of them are educated enough to give an educated writing on any particular subject? I'm sure that a couple of them could, say, write an interesting, intelligent bit on Tipler's Rotating Cylinder - so whats that say about the other 12,985 people on there? This isn't even to say that those people have done anything - but that they're empowered to.

You say Wiki doesn't work because it's open to everyone, and thus will be edited by shitheads. I say Wiki does work because it's open to everyone, and thus those same shithead will be corrected by people that actually know what the are talking about. Your dislike for Wiki has been well well documented here. I understand that is simply not going to change.

How many of those 12,985 that don't know anything about Tipler's Rotating Cylinder are actually going to edit it? And if a couple of them do, those that actually do know what they are talking about will edit it back. You can find 5 wiki articles with false info, I can find 5000 with accurate information.

Like I said, as a 100% infallible source that could be quoted on a term paper or in a report, Wiki wouldn't work. As a quick way to look up a fact, or learn something new about something you didn't know alot about, it does.

Quote:

You cannot accept Wiki as a source for anything if anyone can edit it as they see fit. If you want to - thats your problem; do not make it mine, internet, or you'll get a hard lesson of my foot up your ass.

Really? E-violence? Come on now, this isn't gamefaqs.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Thats a great way to make a defense - until I ask you to quantify that everyone who makes a post or edits on Wiki actually does research on the topic. Obviously - the answer is at least "not all", as there are people who write things that are later removed.

So - you can't quantify that anyone, let alone a number of people, are qualified to make a post about anything on Wiki and be considered legit. The numbers are stacked against you - the proof of evidence is on you, not I.

You're right. I cannot verify that everyone who makes a post does research. Yes, there are people that don't know what they are talking about editing things. However my entire point, and if you had bothered to actually read the thread than spend your time staring at the reply window trying to come up with witty retorts, is that these people will be corrected by those who actually do know what they are talking about. That while yes, there will be errors, overall the self policing style does work for Wikipedia.

Quote:

I said that to the internet - which is not a person, so much as a massive group of people that lacks a singlar ass. To take such a statement seriously denotes you don't understand that which you're apparently using at the moment.

You backpedal any faster, and you're going to fall over.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?