WikiPrank Gone WikiWrong

[r2vq]

[quote="The New York Times"]December 11, 2005
A Little Sleuthing Unmasks Writer of Wikipedia Prank
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with the joker losing his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering a blow to its credibility.

A man in Nashville has admitted that, in trying to shock a colleague with a joke, he put false information into a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville.

Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Mr. Seigenthaler on Friday that he had written the material suggesting that Mr. Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. Wikipedia, a nonprofit venture that is the world's biggest encyclopedia, is written and edited by thousands of volunteers.

Mr. Seigenthaler discovered the false entry only recently and wrote about it in an op-ed article in USA Today, saying he was especially annoyed that he could not track down the perpetrator because of Internet privacy laws. His plight touched off a debate about the reliability of information on Wikipedia - and by extension the entire Internet - and the difficulty in holding Web sites and their users accountable, even when someone is defamed.

In a confessional letter to Mr. Seigenthaler, Mr. Chase said he thought Wikipedia was a "gag" Web site and that he had written the assassination tale to shock a co-worker, who knew of the Seigenthaler family and its illustrious history in Nashville.

"It had the intended effect," Mr. Chase said of his prank in an interview. But Mr. Chase said that once he became aware last week through news accounts of the damage he had done to Mr. Seigenthaler, he was remorseful and also a little scared of what might happen to him.

Mr. Chase also found that he was slowly being cornered in cyberspace, thanks to the sleuthing efforts of Daniel Brandt, 57, of San Antonio, who makes his living as a book indexer. Mr. Brandt has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia and started an anti-Wikipedia Web site ([url]www.wikipedia-watch.org[/url]) in September after reading what he said was a false entry about himself.

Using information in Mr. Seigenthaler's article and some online tools, Mr. Brandt traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville. Mr. Brandt called the company and told employees there about the Wikipedia problem but was not able to learn anything definitive.

Mr. Brandt then sent an e-mail message to the company, asking for information about its courier services. A response bore the same Internet Protocol address that was left by the creator of the Wikipedia entry, offering further evidence of a connection.

A call by a New York Times reporter to the delivery company on Thursday made employees nervous, Mr. Chase later told Mr. Seigenthaler. On Friday, Mr. Chase hand-delivered a letter to Mr. Seigenthaler's office, confessing what he had done, and later they talked at length.

Mr. Chase told him that the Seigenthaler name had come up at work and that he had popped it into a search engine and was led to Wikipedia, where, he said, he was surprised that anyone could make an entry.

Mr. Chase wrote: "I am truly sorry to have offended you, sir. Whatever fame comes to me from this will be ill-gotten indeed."

Mr. Seigenthaler said Mr. Brandt was "a genius" for tracking down Mr. Chase. He said he "was not after a pound of flesh" and would not take Mr. Chase to court.

Mr. Chase resigned from his job because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. Mr. Seigenthaler urged Mr. Chase's boss to rehire him, but Mr. Chase said that, so far, this had not happened.

Mr. Chase said that as Mr. Brandt and the news media were closing in and he realized how much he had hurt Mr. Seigenthaler, he decided that stepping forward was "the right thing to do."

Mr. Seigenthaler, founder of the First Amendment Center, said that as a longtime advocate of free speech, he found it awkward to be tracking down someone who had exercised that right.

"I still believe in free expression," he said. "What I want is accountability."

Jimmy Wales, who founded Wikipedia, said that the site would make more information about users available to make it easier to lodge complaints. But he portrayed the error as something that fell through the cracks, not a sign of a systemic problem. "We have to continually evaluate whether our controls are enough," he said.[/quote]

This article is about a simple prank gone bad. The man who was insulted, John Seigenthaler, didn't press charges and insisted that the man who committed the prank, Brian Chase, should be rehired by his old boss. No harm done, really, but Wikipedia's reputation and credibility has suddenly decreased greatly.

I always found it difficult to understand how Wikipedia could call itself a reliable source of information if anybody could post, but I always found their information pretty accurate. I always attributed it to how the volunteers are probably good natured and at least slightly intelligent.

The fact that Wiki can be used for pranks makes a little more uneasy about using it in the future.

Does anybody at Otakuboards use Wikipedia? If so, what are your thoughts on its reliablity? How has Mr. Chase's prank affected your view on the world's largest Encyclopedia?

-Arvi

[PWNED]

Well, I use Wikipedia regularly and am currently using it and I have to say that it has seriously effected my faith in some of the volunteers that post there. I am so annoyed that someone would pull a prank and joke about being involved with the assassination of two people.

[Kei]

[color=darkblue][size=1]I frequently look to Wikipedia for info on things and actually had to use it in place of a textbook for at least part of this past semester for reasons that shall be left unsaid. Needless to say, I've always thought of Wiki's entries as something to be mostly trusted, but I always kept a hint of doubt about it, which is something that has to be done with all information of the Internet, really. There are too many people out there who put up their own variations of actual information, be it for a joke or because they actually believe their account to be true. Looking at information through wary eyes is damn important when it comes to the Internet. It seems a lot of people are forgetting that.[/size][/color]

[Guest DK_Roji]

[SIZE=2][COLOR=DarkOrange]I only use wikipedia sometimes, but it somewhat surprises me that [I]anyone[/I] could make an entry about [I]anything[/I][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[TheShinje]

[color=crimson] I use Wikipedia quite a bit, and I have contributed to some of the articles there. I like trying to find out information on random things for trivia, most of all.

While it is true that Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it also needs to be said that at any time, a Wiki page can be [i] reverted[/i] to it's prior stage, and that is a safeguard against most nuisance makers out there who deliberately mess **** up because they can.

If I see soemthing on there that is doubtful, i will usually try to verify the accuracy of the detail, and if false, revert it. Evidently, some of the vandalism falls through the cracks. I've had minor doubts about the accuracy of Wikipedia, but I don't think this latest escapade has damaged my trust of it at all. [/color]

[celestialcharm]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid]I like Wikpedia. But, it is considered an unreliable source because people could change information. My economics teacher told us that we cannot use Wikpedia for our projects and assignments because of that. Plus, as this article showed us, that anybody can post information up.[/COLOR]

[Stark]

I am a frequent Wikipedia user, the sort who goes there for info on nearly everything and even used an entry as a source in a paper. This little stunt has...made me wonder about this site now. I'm not comfy knowing that people will use it for jokes, and it's disenheartening because I usually find the information to be pretty accurate.

When they have information about Hurricane Katrina on there already, you know it has to be a good place to go.

It would be nice if they could somehow control what people post on there, like make sure that the post contains information that other people know about and can be found readily online, that might make some of it's users less wary about its content and accuracy.

[Semjaza]

I don't know that this is a "blow" to Wikipedia at all... no more than it has been in the past. Not much has happened thanks to that before. This happens on a very regular basis on many entries because any one and every one can edit them quickly and easily. It's most common on things of "controversy" such as things about recent politics or even the Marilyn Manson page.

It does give more fodder to encyclopedia freaks who complain about how it can never be perfect because of this very reason. I can't say I care because it's generally more useful than not.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Despite the fact that I knew Wikipedia could be edited and added to by anyone, I must admit I always thought the information was reliable unless it had one of those "disputed" warnings at the top. I don't really think my confidence in the accuracy of Wikipedia is really that shaken over this incident, one idiot decided to post prank information on someone I'd never heard of and I'm supposed to think that every article or at least a good portion have similar blatant falsehoods ? In the end I'm not really bothered as I primarily use Wikipedia for my own enjoyment. [/SIZE]

[Ailes de Velour]

I really like Wikipedia, for no reason at all. I don't know. However, my mom is a teacher, and she became really angry when her students used Wikipedia for their research papers. I defended it, but I guess she wins.

>=( dumb people.

[Sage Kaley]

I use wiki a lot, mostly because it tends to have hard to find information. From what I've seen it's more accurate than not. Actually I've been allowed to use it on college papers, my writing teacher told us it's accepted here and showed us how to cite it. I mean, I've always known that since anyone can edit it, I should be wary but it doesn't bother me too much. I know it could be wrong but it's usually pretty right, at the least. Fun way to waste time too.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I like wikipedia, and I use it for my own enjoyment, and sometimes for school projects. I've always felt uneasy about how anyone can post anything on the site though. My brother is obsessed with politics, and he's even submitted some articles to the site, but he has really biased views, so I hope he made sure that his articles were completely objective.[/COLOR]

[Boba Fett]

[color=green]Mr. Seigenthaler should look up "Open Source," before he gets his panties in a bunch.[/color]

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]I use Wikipedia plenty, mainly for myself when I'm bored... but I use it a lot for papers too. The fact that anyone can edit it never bothered me, because, for one, it's pretty easy to spot falsities if you are in the right state of mind... and second, if I'm doing a paper for school, I always double or triple check the information I use. There are always other sites to confirm your doubts about things you get off places like Wikipedia.

As for the prank... I always thought about those kind of things... but I never knew someone would actually be stupid enough to post something like that, especially considering what a serious topic that is. That Chase guy is lucky he didn't cross with a spazzoid. His *** would so be sued. >>[/color][/size]

[Sara]

[color=#333333][font=trebuchet ms]I don't think we really need to add the prefix "wiki" to everything, do we? I mean, come on. This isn't Digimon. ;)[/color][/font]

[Guest AerialXT]

I use Wikipedia alot, seems to give me good answers for things, just hope that what I read isn't fake - Hahah. As Lix pointed out, any stupid false remarks can normally be identified with ease. I guess they should hire experianced people and verify each article before entering/submitting it rather then letting volunteers do what they feel with their statements. As for the dude that wrote up the prank, what an idiot.

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]If Wikipedia vetted articles or edits before they were allowed to be submitted, it would lose a lot of what makes it Wikipedia. I think it's great that I can spot a spelling mistake or grammatical error in someone's article, correct it and it appears, corrected, immediately.

The system they have now works 99% of the time. They have admins (not hired, I believe, but comprised of volunteers not unlike the Mod team here) who read all the newly submitted articles and edits, checking them out for clarity and accuracy. I don't think this one isolated incident should be shaking anyone's foundations.
[quote name='Lore][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=trebuchet ms]I don't think we really need to add the prefix "wiki" to everything, do we?[/font][/color][color=DarkGreen'][font=Trebuchet MS][/quote] Seconded.

...wiki.
[/font][/color]

[Mnemolth]

There is a discussion in Slashdot (Warning Will Robinson, Warning: "Geek Territory ahead") about this:

[url]http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/01/0030200&from=rss[/url]

I think there are a couple of things need to be understood about this situation.

1. John Seigenthaler is not someone famous that people know or look up. This is why you can pull such a prank. Because no one looks up the entry, because no one cares about it, because no one reads it, this is why it slipped through. But if you were doing an assignment, on some topic that is evenly remotely interesting/controversial/popular, you can be sure that blatantly false information like this is very unlikely to fall through.

If you don't believe me I suggest you look up ANY entry that is controversial/popular. George Bush, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Albert Einstein, etc. Go into that entry and try to sneak some blatantly bais or false information in. Go on. Edit it. And then wait, and come back the next day, and see if your edit survived. I'm willing to bet your entry would have been obliterated.

Please note you do this at your own risk, Wikipedia MAY have a policy of banning IPs that intentionally troll.

2. Wikipedia should not be taken as the word of God. But then you shouldn't accept everything you read in the library or see on TV either. Just because it is in a book doesn't make it true. Wikipedia is no more or less reliable. But you know what's so great about Wikipedia? Besides the fact that it is free. It is the fact that most Wikipedia articles have reference to the original sources. So you can click on the links and go to the actual source and cross-check the facts yourself.

So if you want to write a paper on Occam's Razor, or Abortion, or some similar topic, you can get straight into it on Wikipedia. Even if you can't use Wikipedia as a source, you can just glean the information from Wikipedia, then use the links/references as sources.

See, the greatest thing about Wikipedia is that YOU are in charge.

The last thing I would say about Wikipedia is that it is especially useful when you deal with very controversial topics like Intelligent Design or Palestine. Because these are very controversial issues the articles are constantly monitored to ensure that bias information doesn't creep in. This is because people FOR or AGAINST an issue will make sure that the facts are correct. So the article ends up being very balanced, having been beaten up by both sides.

EDIT: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm[/url]

Apparently Wikipedia is as accurate on science as Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Sara]

[color=#333333][font=trebuchet ms]I guess I just can't help but be amused by this whole thing. Because, for the same reason that the information was put there in the first place, [b]Mr. Seigenthaler could have easily corrected it himself[/b].

That's the basis of the site. Like Mnemolth (and possibly others) have pointed out, users keep each other in check. If you see something that's obviously wrong, as a user of Wikipedia you're very nearly obligated to correct it. That's why the system works.

Yes, there's a problem when someone sees an error and writes an op/ed piece in USA today. But I'm wondering where the problem lies, and it doesn't seem to be with a system that works for every other article on the site.[/color][/font]

[r2vq]

Just an update...
Since the news of the WikiPrank got around the net, a wave of pranks hit the Online Encyclopedia, mostly for the purpose of discreditting the site.

The prank entires are constantly being erased and fixed, but according to the article, they keep popping up. There's a theory that says the attacks may have been organized in chat rooms and the such.

One of the articles suggested that the creator of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, was shot in the head by Seigenthaler's wife.

[quote]Today's false report of its founder's murder read: "At 18:54 EST on December 12, John Seigenthaler's wife, who was infuriated at Wikipedia regarding the recent scandal regarding his role in the Kennedy Assassination, came into the house, where Jim was having dinner. Wearing a mask, he [sic] shot him three times in the head and ran."[/quote]

The article for "Wikipedia" was also editted a few times.

[quote]A search for the term 'Wikipedia' revealed the one-line entry: "An encyclopedia full of crap."

Subsequent searches revealed: "Although it may seem factual, Wikipedia is largely a web of lies and falsehoods, and it is not to be trusted by any means. Do not use wikipedia as a source for anything; it is worthless."

And later: "Editors are encouraged to uphold a policy of sticking it's head up it's ***; under which notable perspectives are summarised without an attempt to determine an objective truth."[/quote]

Full Article: [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1933568,00.html[/url]

Edit: [quote name='Lore][color=#333333][font=trebuchet ms]I don't think we really need to add the prefix "wiki" to everything, do we? I mean, come on. This isn't Digimon. ;)[/color'][/font][/quote]

hehe, but it's wikifun. xP and it makes me feel like i might wikivolve.
but hey, it aint as bad as the live action Batman series with Adam West.

As for...

[quote name='Lore][color=#333333][font=trebuchet ms]Because, for the same reason that the information was put there in the first place, [b]Mr. Seigenthaler could have easily corrected it himself[/b].[/color'][/font][/quote]

According to Wikipedia...(heh)

[quote]Since many people read Seigenthaler's op-ed, and few people responded to the original article, some Citation needed Wikipedia contributors (known as Wikipedians) questioned his reluctance to simply correct the page.

Seigenthaler responded to this in an interview on NPR (National Public Radio). He said that he did not want to have anything to do with Wikipedia because he disapproved of its basic assumptions. He also pointed out that the false information had been online for several months before he was aware of it, and that he could not edit Wikipedia when he did not even know of the article's existence. Editing Wikipedia, he suggested, would lend it his sanction or approval. He believed that editing the article was not enough and instead wanted to expose what he thought are "incurable flaws" in the Wikipedia process and ethos.[/quote]
Full Article: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy[/url]

-Arvi

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Mnemolth']If you don't believe me I suggest you look up ANY entry that is controversial/popular. George Bush, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Albert Einstein, etc. Go into that entry and try to sneak some blatantly bais or false information in. Go on. Edit it. And then wait, and come back the next day, and see if your edit survived. I'm willing to bet your entry would have been obliterated.[/quote]

[color=green]I'm willing to bet those entries are locked due to their controversial natures.[/color]

[r2vq]

I would have assumed that locking any such entries would defeat the entire purpose of wikipedia.

-Arvi

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=r2vq]I would have assumed that locking any such entries would defeat the entire purpose of wikipedia.

-Arvi[/QUOTE]

[color=green]Wikipedia exists to provide accurate information. If a page is being vandalized to the point where it's no longer useful, locking the page is necessary.

Locked articles are crucial to the entire purpose of Wikipedia - dissemination of accurate information.[/color]

[renayiiq]

My personal opinion on this is: I don't use Wikipedia, never heard of it, but now I have an online encyclopedia (sp?) to go to! Thanks! This is a good example of how human beings are, well, human, and humans make mistakes.
Word of advice: Kids, don't try this at home.

[Mnemolth]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']I'm willing to bet those entries are locked due to their controversial natures.[/color][/quote]

Actually no. This is why people are so skeptical of its reliability. But it works out quite well. Wikipedia may lock pages but it is very, very rare. Right now, I'm able to edit the Intelligent Design article.