
Student's Wikipedia hoax quote used worldwide in newspapers - vaksel
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
======
Chickencha
This kind of stuff happens all the time and it's really disappointing.
Wikipedia is a good starting place for learning about things, but if you're
publishing something and citing Wikipedia then something is seriously wrong.

If you're using Wikipedia for anything more than casual learning, then you'd
better make sure that you can find another source to confirm what you find
(and make sure that that source doesn't cite Wikipedia).

~~~
jameskpolk
I'd take your statement one step further: if you are citing _anything_ that
isn't a primary source, you're very likely "doing it wrong".

Sources like Wikipedia or other encyclopedias are good for beginning to
understand the topic, and finding relevant primary sources.

~~~
chris11
I completely agree with you.

That is kind of why it always annoys me when somebody intentionally puts an
error into Wikipedia. The message that usually comes out in the media is that
Wikipedia isn't that should be used for finding primary sources, but that
Wikipedia can be blatantly wrong and can't be trusted.

It seems like the message most educators get and send is that Wikipedia has
little academic value, when it really is great as a starting point.

~~~
anigbrowl
A valid point. I don't mind hoaxes too much though, because a) they
incrementally improve editing standards on WP and b) I'm starting to think
that the form of someone's reaction to WP tells you a lot about their thinking
process, or lack thereof.

~~~
chris11
Yeah, I don't really have a problem with the editing standards on Wikipedia.
The article mentions that the changes where almost immediately reversed
several times.

Right now encyclopedia companies seem to be operating on accuracy through
obscurity, believing that if they control who edits the textbook, the results
would have an acceptable level of accuracy. And that method can get good
results. But that also means open encyclopedias will be viewed as more
inaccurate for awhile, which means the errors are more public. I'm sure that
everyone has had teachers complain about the accuracy of some textbooks, but
those errors don't usually make news stories.

So I see hoax edits as somewhat comparable to a programmer intentionally
putting a back door or easily exploitable code into open source software. The
attempt could bring up problems with the code submittal process, and I'm sure
that most well-run projects would quickly fix the error. But if the media got
a hold of the story, it would not help convince technical managers and CIOs to
take open source software seriously.

------
dimitar
There are some lazy and irresponsible journalists out there. Speedy delivery
and hype is often more important than correctness.

In my country we have an old saying "If the papers say that your sister is a
whore, good luck proving you don't even have a sister!"

~~~
sjh
I don't think it's simply a case of "some lazy and irresponsible journalists"
- standards generally seem to have slipped. Shane Fitzgerald was intereviewed
on the radio here in Ireland earlier today by the former editor of a national
Sunday newspaper, a thoughtful and well-read fellow. With his first question,
the interviewer invited Mr Fitzgerald to explain how the stunt had highlighted
a flaw with Wikipedia.

------
aarongough
I would say it would be an interesting experiment to see if the moderators on
wikipedia now feel the the quote can be left there, seeing as it can now
reference the newspaper articles that it spawned...

~~~
Chickencha
This type of circular reference has happened before:
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090211/1249253735.shtml>

------
tvon
A problem with Wikipedia is that it only presents you with a snapshot view.
Yes, the diff tools are right there but sadly people don't use them enough. I
think it would go a long way to have a simple indication of frequently
changing or recently changed content in the default article view (eg, content
added in the last week highlighted in yellow, items removed in the last week
in lined-out and grayed text). Something like this probably would not have
prevented the problem presented in this article (which is apparently that some
reporters are lazy), but it would be a big improvement, IMO.

~~~
eru
You could prototype that as a Firefox-extension. Seems worth a try.

------
marcusbooster
As a grade-schooler I was always taught to find 2 sources that could not be an
encyclopedia, and this was before Wikipedia.

I understand the need to get information out when it's breaking news, but it
seems editors are getting the same itchy trigger fingers we have associated
with the bloggers & tweeters. They should be embarrassed at best, and probably
reprimanded.

~~~
anigbrowl
Quite, and the same used to be an iron rule of journalism. The whole benefit
of (any-)pedia is to guide you to those sources by presenting them in a
meaningful context.

I get just as irritated by people who reflexively say 'you cited wikipedia LOL
fail' which is usually an excuse to avoid reading something that contradicts
or undermines their argument. Entertainingly, if you give the same person
links to the sources cited in a given article, they'll just as often complain
about 'ivory tower elitism'. teh stupid, it burns :-(

------
noonespecial
Stuff like this makes me think that maybe Grover should start doing _"primary
source, secondary source"_ on Sesame Street right after _"near, far"_. Its
becoming that basic and that important.

------
jibiki
I'll note that there are many religions in the world, and at most one of them
can be correct. Some of these faiths require you to believe things which are
much less likely than Maurice Jarre saying what Fitzgerald had him saying.

My point is that it's not very impressive to make lots of people believe
things that aren't true.

~~~
Chickencha
I agree with you in the general case, but when some of those people are
journalists who work for respected newspapers, then it becomes...maybe not
impressive, exactly, but certainly significant.

Journalists have a responsibility to make sure they're printing the truth.
It's really distressing to know that there are some out there who are so lazy.
This particular example isn't that big of a deal, but it's easy to imagine
something similar happening with something more important.

------
thorax
Reminds me somewhat of the story of Demomotus.

A notable ancient greek philosopher for 5-6 months or so: <http://evans-
experientialism.freewebspace.com/demomotus.htm>

------
Hexstream
"The quote had no referenced sources and was therefore taken down by
moderators of Wikipedia within minutes. However, Fitzgerald put it back a few
more times until it was finally left up on the site for more than 24 hours."

Still not too shabby.

------
jpwagner
a joke in a poor taste, but amusing none the less...

~~~
RossM
I think it's worth giving the student some credit for not adding something
embarrassing:

 _While he was wary about the ethical implications of using someone’s death as
a social experiment, he had carefully generated the quote so as not to distort
or taint Jarre’s life, he said._

~~~
jpwagner
FWIW, I'm positive Jarre would be offended.

------
bingaman
My research is complete: Shane Fitzgerald is a dick.

