Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down Of America

Shamgar · #1 (**permalink**) 12-14-2005, 08:19 AM

Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down Of America

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4520678.stm

Last Updated: Monday, 12 December 2005, 10:27 GMT

Wikipedia joker eats humble pie
John Seigenthaler Sr, AP
Seigenthaler criticised the Wikipedia's reliability
The man behind a fake posting on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia that linked a journalist to the Kennedy assassinations has apologised.

Tennessean Brian Chase said he added to the entry to trick a co-worker.

The discovery of the fake data in journalist John Seigenthaler's biography started a debate about the online reference work's reliability.

The prank caused Wikipedia to change its policy so only registered users can create entries.

Data debate

Mr Chase, who added the false information to the biography in May 2005, said he did not realise that the online encyclopedia was taken so seriously.

The fake information stated that Mr Seigenthaler Sr was linked to the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and that he had lived in the Soviet Union for 13 years. The entry has now been corrected.

Quoted in The Tennessean newspaper, Mr Chase said: "I knew from the news that Mr. Seigenthaler was looking for who did it, and I did it, so I needed to let him know in particular that it wasn't anyone out to get him, that it was done as a joke that went horribly, horribly wrong."

The fake data was added to shock a co-worker who knew the Seigenthaler family, said Mr Chase. He has now resigned from his job as an operations manager with a Nashville delivery company following his unmasking.

The fallout from the prank led Mr Seigenthaler to write an opinion piece for USA Today which sharply criticised the reliability of Wikipedia.

Mr Seigenthaler was a founding editor of USA Today who worked closely with John Kennedy and was a friend of Robert Kennedy.

The incident also led to a lot of unfavourable coverage of Wikipedia in newspapers and online.

Mr Seigenthaler said he would not take legal action over the entry and urged Mr Chase's boss not to accept his resignation.

JavaBlack · #2 (**permalink**) 12-14-2005, 08:32 AM

Of course mistakes would happen with such a format. But anyone who relies on only one source is going to get that. Since when is a source being wrong "dumbing down America". It makes people more careful.
All in all, for its format Wikipedia is surprisingly good. I wouldn't trust it to write a paper with or on any life or death issue, but it's fun to browse anyway. And most entries are a testament to the intelligence of the common person.

EugenicHegemony · #3 (**permalink**) 12-14-2005, 08:36 PM

The only one's who have been "Dumbing Down America", is the U.S. government, and their compulsary prussian national communist uneducation system. All to create worker ants for the labor force in America.

Shamgar · #4 (**permalink**) 12-16-2005, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Of course mistakes would happen with such a format. But anyone who relies on only one source is going to get that. Since when is a source being wrong "dumbing down America". It makes people more careful.
All in all, for its format Wikipedia is surprisingly good. I wouldn't trust it to write a paper with or on any life or death issue, but it's fun to browse anyway. And most entries are a testament to the intelligence of the common person.

Yeah non peered reviewed encylcopedias are not worth the electrons they are written on. . .only a cretin would call it a viable "encyclopedia". . . ..

EugenicHegemony · #5 (**permalink**) 12-18-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Of course mistakes would happen with such a format. But anyone who relies on only one source is going to get that. Since when is a source being wrong "dumbing down America". It makes people more careful.
All in all, for its format Wikipedia is surprisingly good. I wouldn't trust it to write a paper with or on any life or death issue, but it's fun to browse anyway. And most entries are a testament to the intelligence of the common person.

Yeah non peered reviewed encylcopedias are not worth the electrons they are written on. . .only a cretin would call it a viable "encyclopedia". . . ..

The Bible is the same (*)(*)(*)(*) thing...

Shamgar · #6 (**permalink**) 12-18-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugenicHegemony";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Of course mistakes would happen with such a format. But anyone who relies on only one source is going to get that. Since when is a source being wrong "dumbing down America". It makes people more careful.
All in all, for its format Wikipedia is surprisingly good. I wouldn't trust it to write a paper with or on any life or death issue, but it's fun to browse anyway. And most entries are a testament to the intelligence of the common person.

Yeah non peered reviewed encylcopedias are not worth the electrons they are written on. . .only a cretin would call it a viable "encyclopedia". . . ..

The Bible is the same (*)(*)(*)(*) thing...

Yeah and only a cretin would make a statement like that. . .

EugenicHegemony · #7 (**permalink**) 12-18-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugenicHegemony";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Of course mistakes would happen with such a format. But anyone who relies on only one source is going to get that. Since when is a source being wrong "dumbing down America". It makes people more careful.
All in all, for its format Wikipedia is surprisingly good. I wouldn't trust it to write a paper with or on any life or death issue, but it's fun to browse anyway. And most entries are a testament to the intelligence of the common person.

Yeah non peered reviewed encylcopedias are not worth the electrons they are written on. . .only a cretin would call it a viable "encyclopedia". . . ..

The Bible is the same (*)(*)(*)(*) thing...

Yeah and only a cretin would make a statement like that. . .

Only a religiously brainwashed belligerently ignorant government bootlicker would deny it. Your "good book" has more holes in it than an Iraqi.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5052156

Interesting program by a Biblical scholar.

Seems that for hundreds of years the scribes were taking liberties with the text in the Bible. These changes lead right up to today.

The interview is great - click audio.

He goes into the discrepancies between verses, each persons account of Jesus and each scribes version.

For example, the woman who is caught doing adultery, where Jesus draws a circle and says, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

Turns out that whole story was added in the Medieval Age. NEVER HAPPENED!

Or when Jesus met the leper and cured him: 1) "Jesus became compassionate"
2) (the original) "Jesus became angry."

Or the differences of accounts when he was on the cross:
1)"God why have you forsaken me" (He didn't know what was going on)
2)"Father I commit myself into your arms" (He knew what was going on)

What better way to celebrate Christmas than to know Jesus as he really was - an angry young man (from the original Luke, for example)!

Now see, I would've been a Christian if they told me Jesus was a rock & roller!

C'mon all you Christians, pony up! What's going on here with your Divinely Inspired Text (that has been edited thousands of times from day one).

Turns out the Bible is the Religious equivalent to Wikipedia.

Shamgar · #8 (**permalink**) 12-18-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugenicHegemony";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugenicHegemony";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Of course mistakes would happen with such a format. But anyone who relies on only one source is going to get that. Since when is a source being wrong "dumbing down America". It makes people more careful.
All in all, for its format Wikipedia is surprisingly good. I wouldn't trust it to write a paper with or on any life or death issue, but it's fun to browse anyway. And most entries are a testament to the intelligence of the common person.

Yeah non peered reviewed encylcopedias are not worth the electrons they are written on. . .only a cretin would call it a viable "encyclopedia". . . ..

The Bible is the same (*)(*)(*)(*) thing...

Yeah and only a cretin would make a statement like that. . .

[i]Only a religiously brainwashed belligerently ignorant government bootlicker would deny it. Your "good book" has more holes in it than an Iraqi.

1.. You've never read it so you cannot commetn on it. . .

2. If you did read it you didn't understand it. . .

3. So either way you are a cretin. . . .

1 Cor 2: 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

EugenicHegemony · #9 (**permalink**) 12-18-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugenicHegemony";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by EugenicHegemony";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamgar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

Of course mistakes would happen with such a format. But anyone who relies on only one source is going to get that. Since when is a source being wrong "dumbing down America". It makes people more careful.
All in all, for its format Wikipedia is surprisingly good. I wouldn't trust it to write a paper with or on any life or death issue, but it's fun to browse anyway. And most entries are a testament to the intelligence of the common person.

Yeah non peered reviewed encylcopedias are not worth the electrons they are written on. . .only a cretin would call it a viable "encyclopedia". . . ..

The Bible is the same (*)(*)(*)(*) thing...

Yeah and only a cretin would make a statement like that. . .

Only a religiously brainwashed belligerently ignorant government bootlicker would deny it. Your "good book" has more holes in it than an Iraqi.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5052156

Interesting program by a Biblical scholar.

Seems that for hundreds of years the scribes were taking liberties with the text in the Bible. These changes lead right up to today.

The interview is great - click audio.

He goes into the discrepancies between verses, each persons account of Jesus and each scribes version.

For example, the woman who is caught doing adultery, where Jesus draws a circle and says, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

Turns out that whole story was added in the Medieval Age. NEVER HAPPENED!

Or when Jesus met the leper and cured him: 1) "Jesus became compassionate"
2) (the original) "Jesus became angry."

Or the differences of accounts when he was on the cross:
1)"God why have you forsaken me" (He didn't know what was going on)
2)"Father I commit myself into your arms" (He knew what was going on)

What better way to celebrate Christmas than to know Jesus as he really was - an angry young man (from the original Luke, for example)!

Now see, I would've been a Christian if they told me Jesus was a rock & roller!

C'mon all you Christians, pony up! What's going on here with your Divinely Inspired Text (that has been edited thousands of times from day one).

Turns out the Bible is the Religious equivalent to Wikipedia.

Shamgar · #10 (**permalink**) 12-19-2005, 01:27 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode