Be careful out there
There's something called Wikipedia lurking about.
I say this tongue in cheek because I have used the online encyclopedia for information. One has to be careful though because of the very nature of the enterprise. With it's intended structure of anyone contributing and the truth bubbling to the top, it should be no surprise that errors exist or that bias persists on controversial subjects.
The latest problem that comes to light, is of a man that was accused of assassinating President Kennedy.
Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar
So what of those people involved in controversial matters that do not have the time to police this site and enter the process of contesting such entries? The problem is that many consider this source reliable, even on matters that are still mired in rancorous debate. We should keep in mind that while a huge and open collective effort can allow the truth to rise to the top, there are some that care not for the truth. It isn't difficult to encourage those with an adolescent, relative morality mindset to spam such a site to twist particular entries. Who has the time to police such things? Sort of like wondering, who has the time to constantly be attending anti-war or anti-capitalism protests.
Fortunately, Mr. Seigenthaler became aware of the problem. But, how many others, across the world, have been slandered as well? One controversial subject that is not handled well is Intelligent Design. Last I looked at the entry, there wasn't a flag to even indicate the matter is controversial.
The entry contents alone are revealing, considering that this issues is still highly debated. There are four main sections. The Intelligent Design debate section has sub-sections criticizing each defintion of components of ID. There is an entire section criticizing ID consisting of 6 sub-sections. ID proponents replies appear to be limited to endnote links rather than included in the main body. This seems to me to be the equivalent of the dead wood media, having their biased title and opening paragraph above the fold of the page where it can easily be seen on newstands. Never mind that the following paragraphs don't really support the blazing headline.
So, be careful out there. Wikipedia is rather comprehensive, but not all that reliable on controversial matters. You might want to also check to see if you're involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Previous posts:
Dover or Do over?
I say this tongue in cheek because I have used the online encyclopedia for information. One has to be careful though because of the very nature of the enterprise. With it's intended structure of anyone contributing and the truth bubbling to the top, it should be no surprise that errors exist or that bias persists on controversial subjects.
The latest problem that comes to light, is of a man that was accused of assassinating President Kennedy.
Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar
ACCORDING to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. is 78 years old and the former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. But is that information, or anything else in Mr. Seigenthaler's biography, true? The question arises because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and was shocked to learn that he "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby."
So what of those people involved in controversial matters that do not have the time to police this site and enter the process of contesting such entries? The problem is that many consider this source reliable, even on matters that are still mired in rancorous debate. We should keep in mind that while a huge and open collective effort can allow the truth to rise to the top, there are some that care not for the truth. It isn't difficult to encourage those with an adolescent, relative morality mindset to spam such a site to twist particular entries. Who has the time to police such things? Sort of like wondering, who has the time to constantly be attending anti-war or anti-capitalism protests.
Fortunately, Mr. Seigenthaler became aware of the problem. But, how many others, across the world, have been slandered as well? One controversial subject that is not handled well is Intelligent Design. Last I looked at the entry, there wasn't a flag to even indicate the matter is controversial.
The entry contents alone are revealing, considering that this issues is still highly debated. There are four main sections. The Intelligent Design debate section has sub-sections criticizing each defintion of components of ID. There is an entire section criticizing ID consisting of 6 sub-sections. ID proponents replies appear to be limited to endnote links rather than included in the main body. This seems to me to be the equivalent of the dead wood media, having their biased title and opening paragraph above the fold of the page where it can easily be seen on newstands. Never mind that the following paragraphs don't really support the blazing headline.
So, be careful out there. Wikipedia is rather comprehensive, but not all that reliable on controversial matters. You might want to also check to see if you're involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Previous posts:
Dover or Do over?
Author: Mark K. Sprengel | 12:23:00 PM |
|
| 
Save To ~ Social Bookmarks | My Bookstore |
