Talk:Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Agreed, very irresponsible

Wikipedia is quite irresponsible. I'm surprised he did not sue them as they now have ties with Google. Wikipedia may have been lucky this time, if luck is even something that can happen in cyberspace. —preceding unsigned comment by 142.77.9.145 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 December 2005

Wikipedia is most likely immune to being sued for this, given that the law in the US currently gives ISPs, online forum hosting sites, and other such places (which don't exercise strict editorial control over content) wide immunity. Further, when notified of the error, Wikipedia was very fast at correcting the falsehoods. Alledged ties with Google (what ties, BTW?) have nothing to do with it. --EngineerScotty 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, EngineerScotty. Wiki was a responsible citizen. The operative law is the Communications Decency Act, specifically 47 USC 230(c)(1). Because Wiki is not involved in editorial control before material appears, Wiki is therefore immune. Some operative cases in this area are Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Gentry v. eBay, and Barrett v. Rosenthal. Wiki acted exactly in the fashion by which courts in other cases have praised ISPs. JuanOso 22:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why This Page Is Important

At the risk of unduly trying the patience of the Wikipedia community, I am cross-posting the following comments that I posted on the votes for deletion page concerning this page. Understandably, I guess, the admins decided this was too lengthy for that page and moved it to the talk page for that page. I resubmit it here because it raises other issues and might be lost otherwise. I realize that not everyone may agree with the following.

Keep. Last night in the discussion page for the original article on John Seigenthaler Sr. I advised the following --

I am also introducing a new subject heading which may seem premature now, but I suspect will prove to be appropriate during the coming months.

-- and I did that, creating the subject heading "Seigenthaler's Wikipedia Controversy", in addition to making some other edits that I thought more constructively referenced the portions of the original article that generated the controversy. Although a portion of my edit has survived, the separate subject area was merged back into the previous section. Reflecting upon it, I decided that the admins, or whomever, had decided they didn't want to give the controversy that much prominence, and I can sort of comprehend that reasoning, although I believe it is mistaken.

Later last night, though, I had the thought that the controversy is going to eventually need a separate article. The reference to the controversy in the biography of Mr. Seigenthaler should be cut back to one terse sentence with a link reference to a separate article on the issue, since the issue itself is just that, an issue, and as such is something other than a part of Mr. Seigenthaler's biography.

I also had the thought that the entry on Mr. Seigenthaler is already too long and should be cut back. Compare its length with those for journalists Harrison Salisbury, A.M. Rosenthal, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Charles Collingwood, Arthur Krock or Frank McGee. In contrast with Mr. Seigenthaler, the Wikipedia does not even have entries on Tom Wicker, Turner Catledge, Heywood Hale Broun or Claude Sitton. (Yes, I know what I should do about that.)

This community has been too obsequious in its efforts to mollify Mr. Seigenthaler. Despite the community's sustained work, Mr. Seigenthaler has continued to find fault with his entry and to defame this entire community. It's about time that someone forthrightly told Mr. Seigenthaler that if he wants a different entry, he can write the thing himself.

But I also had the thought that maybe I was getting a little too worked up over this thing, and with that I went to bed.

Then this afternoon I turned on the television and largely at random left the thing at CNN. The next thing I knew, I was watching Mr. Seigenthaler and Jim Wales being interviewed by Kyra Phiilips.

During the interview, Ms. Phillips opined that she had read Wikipedia article on her and "that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful." Interestingly with the Wikipedia there is, of course, a remedy for Ms. Phillips' vanity. But my point is this, I spent 15 years in reporting and publishing and I have three press awards. And I can not describe the level of agitation that I felt at hearing someone who claims to be in journalism implying that she ought to be able to approve what people write about her. Words fail me here.

My point in all this is that this thing is bigger than many Wikipedians seem to realize. Mr. Seigenthaler appeared Friday night on MSNBC and today on CNN. I spent 15 years in the news business. I am telling you that this kind of thing does not just happen. Somebody is working an agenda here.

During the CNN interview, Mr. Seigenthaler stated, "... can I just say where I'm worried about this leading. Next year we go into an election year. Every politician is going to find himself or herself subjected to the same sort of outrageous commentary that hit me, and hits others. I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result of that. And I, I tell you, I think if you can't fix it, both fix the history as well as the biography pages, I think it's going to be in real trouble, and we're going to have to be fighting to keep the government from regulating you."

Of course Mr. Seigenthaler said all this in exactly that tone of voice someone uses when saying he doesn't want exactly what he does want, which is government regulation of the content of the internet to the benefit of large corporations that can afford to satisfy the demands of those controls. Not to mention that based upon his activities so far, Mr. Seigenthaler is arguably one of the last people on earth to be relied upon for "fighting to keep the government from regulating" the Wikipedia.

And, of course, every politician in the country is already subjected to what he or she frequently regards as "outrageous commentary" from the industry Mr. Seigenthaler represents.

"Well, I'll tell you what gentleman, why don't we continue this conversation after the election," Phillips suggested.

This is not going to go away.

"Ultimately the marketplace will take care of Wikipedia," Mr. Seigenthaler said. (And the marketplace will probably take care of the Wikipedia's little dog, too, if Mr. Seigenthaler has anything to say about it.) "I'm concerned, deeply concerned about the fact that in the five days since I wrote the article in 'USAToday', in those five days, they created a new biography ..."

Concerned? Considering it's an all-volunteer effort, I would think he'd be grateful.

By marketplace, of course, Mr. Seigenthaler means the same few large corporations that already own most of the mainstream maedia in this country. And when Mr. Seigenthaler says, "I think if you can't fix it, both fix the history as well as the biography pages, I think it's going to be in real trouble," he means that he wants those pages locked up so that there is no chance that anything that doesn't conform to his view of history will ever reach the public.

I should interject here that one deficiency of the current Wikipedia biography of Mr. Seigenthaler is that it fails to mention that he is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This man is a pillar of the American establishment.

"Do you have fact checkers?" Ms. Phillips asked Mr. Wales. "Have you hired people that you trust that are smart that do their research and constantly check up on everything that goes into your Web site?"

During the interview, CNN posted one of those bottom of the screen headlines subliminally stating that the Wikipedia was the work of 'amateurs'. I defy anyone to read the Wikipedia entries in subject areas such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy, as well as history and biography, and call them the work of amateurs.

The goal of these attacks is to defame the Wikipedia, but not to destroy it. Hiring professional fact checkers and editors -- the sort of people that Ms. Phillips rather dubiously describes as "smart" -- would mean converting the Wikipedia into the same sort of bureaucratic market-driven enterprise that all the mainstream news organizations are. Then, of course, one of those large corporations will happily buy it.

And that will end not only the Wikipedia as it exists today but all the other wikis out there that have been inspired by it.

Without meaning to, and without even any thought that it might do so, the Wikipedia community now finds itself in a fight for its future. The future of the entire internet is in play here. The point at issue is not just whether or not the public is allowed to participate in public discourse without the approval of the likes of Mr. Seigenthaler and Ms. Phillips.

This fight is about whether or not large corporations will own speech. Words and their meanings form the numinous portal to the world of the human spirit. The media corporations are designing to own the human spirit.

Fight them. Marcopolo 03:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• that's a very interesting piece there marcopolo... maybe u can put up a portion of this into the article, if of course u feel its appropriate :)... Jam2k 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

While I won't accuse Seigenthaler (or any other specific person) of being involved in any conspiracy, I am starting to detect the faint whiff of a rat (in the media in general--again, not Seigenthaler). In the past couple months or so (moreso as the poll numbers of the current administration have plummeted due to numerous factors), I've seen more agitation in the mainstream press against Internet publishers. Not just Wikipedia (which is not a primary source of ire); but also the blogosphere, alternate web news sites, and other "alternative" information sources. It sounds like someone is building a case (and trying to frame the debate) for some upcoming obnoxions legislation. The following is completely speculation and conjecture on my part; and I hope none of this comes to pass. But it may.

Do I expect a frontal assault on Internet publishing (and therefore, on the First Amendment)? No; that would be too transparent, and politically untenable. Instead, I suspect we'll see a Communications Integrity Act of 2007 (give or take a year), which will seek to rewrite the fundamental bargain which was struck by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and which has made the net (especially in the US) the wild and wooly place it is today.

While the CDA was controversial at the time for its anti-obscenity provisions (which were overturned by the Supreme Court in ACLU vs Reno), one of the fundamental parts of the law which has survived to this day is the part dealing with liability for libel and other actionable speech. Under the current CDA regime; ISPs, forum hosting sites, and other entities which don't exert direct editorial control over content, are largely immune from any liability stemming from libellous speech that may be found on their network or site. In other words, they have something similar to the common carrier status long enjoyed by telephone companies and other forms of point-to-point communications infrastructure.

My suspicion is that the groundwork may be being laid for legislation which would declare websites--if not ISPs--to be responsible for the content produced by their users--common carrier status would be done away with. In other words, if someone were to host a website on Blogger containing (allegedly) defamatory statements against some politication or other public figure, Google could conceivably get sued. Of course, such legislation would likely include a "takedown" provision, in order to protect the interests of major media and communications companies--blogger/google would likely be able protect itself, in such a scenario, by removing (censoring) any comment which is complained about. (This could be similar to the "safe harbor" provisions of the DCMA). But the point would be to force ISPs, Internet hosting companies, and independent sites (including Wikipedia) to assume a more active editorial role, in order to avoid being sued. Rather than needing an injunction or lawsuit to get content removed, someone would only have to file a complaint alledging defamation.

Much of this is, of course, unnecessary. Seigenthaler still has the right to file a "John Doe" lawsuit, at which point BellSouth will have no choice but to reveal the name of the user who defamed him. (Of course, there's a good chance that the individual in question will be "judgment-proof"; making a defamation lawsuit pointless). But that's not the point of the exercise.

Keep your eyes and ears open, folks. --EngineerScotty 06:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jam2k and Engineer Scotty, for taking the time to comment on my posting. It shows that you read it and that is always gratifying.

Jam2k, you suggested "maybe u can put up a portion of this into the article, if of course u feel its appropriate". I appreciate that suggestion, but it is not appropriate for now. This whole controversy has become a considerable hot potato and I am very wary about introducing anything into an article that I haven't thought a lot about. Although obviously I put considerable thought into the posting, I still do not feel that I have entirely thought all this through. In addition, if you think about the flack all this is generating, I am sure there are admins sitting in front of computers alongside great barrels of antacids and tranqulizers checking all this by the second in fear of what someone might thoughtlessly post on these subjects. I would rather not add to their anxieties.

EngineerScotty, that is a marvelous and considerably thought-out posting you have added. It runs in tandem with some of my own thinking and I need to think about it a while.

In the meantime, I have a suggestion about the redesign not only of this page, but of (cringe) all the Wikipedia pages. I hope evntually to develop this suggestion into a ful-fledged argument on its behalf. For the moment thought, I am suggesting that, inadditon to the cuurent tabs at the top of each page -- Article, Discussion, Edit this page, -- Oh, wait, there already maybe appears to be one.

Up to now, I hadn't quite noticed that '+' at the top of each page. I opened that link and got a page labeled "Editing Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy (comment)". I am embarrassed to say I'm not sure what that is, but maybe the feature I am thinking of already exists. Or perhaps not, since it appears to be an edit page.

At any rate, what I had in mind was a tab at the top of each article page labeled "Opinion". In my limited experience, the discussion pages are being misused in the sense that I am thinking these pages are for members of the community to comment on the articles in the editorial sense -- to point out flaws and to suggest changes in content. In addition to that, at least as it relates to the ongoing controversy, the discussion pages have been used by users to express opinions on the subject of the articles, rather than upon the manner of its composition. I know that's what I sure have mostly been doing.

I happen to think this is a very important thing to do, sometimes, and having a page attached to each article for that purpose would provide a forum for strongly motivated members of the Wikipedia community. In addition, a page with content on it that is clearly labeled 'Opinion' would establish a more lenient standard for the content of that page with regard to questions of libel and negligence. That is why newspapers label their opinion pages as opinion pages.

I suppose I ought to read the help files to find out what that little '+' tab is, huh? Marcopolo 10:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The little + sign

is for adding a section to the end of an article. That's it--it's a shortcut. (I used it for this posting).

While an "opinions" section might be interesting; any opinion you want to offer can be placed either on the discussion page (as we are doing now), or on your own homepage. Adding a third page to each article, and replumbing the system to accomodate, is probably too large of a change to the site software to consider. --EngineerScotty 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OMG Seigenthaler killed Dumbledore!

Should we quote the offending Wikipedia info in this? I think the article is wholly incomplete with out it, but maybe others think it's a bad idea. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate. Seigenthaler quoted them in his USA Today editorial, so he should have no problem if we quote them here, as long as the article makes it clear that the information is false. --TantalumTelluride 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"as long as the article makes it clear that the information is false"

U mean people would actually believe that if the article didn't make it clear it was false??? :-) Jam2k 06:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just don't want to upset Mr. Seigenthaler, who understandably wants us to report the truth. (I don't agree with the way Seigenthaler has handled this situation, but I certainly don't want to give him more ammunition against Wikipedia.) --TantalumTelluride 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a remark

John brought up the case of falsehoods on politican's pages, as we go into the US election. He said that they might stay for 4-5 months, just like the falsehoods of in his bio. I think we'd catch them a little quicker than that, seeing how they're hot topics compared to him. Of course, the interview ended before Jimmy could note this. -- user:zanimum

Isn't it ironic? Seigenthaler says Wikipedia is unreliable & that he'd never use it. Yet by making his critisms public (taking it to CNN, no less), he's givin Wikipedia more exposure. Likely more visitors/editors have visited Wikipedia since, then ever before. GoodDay 21:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But in the case of Wikipedia, any press is most certainly not good press. Although I follow your reasoning, and it is a very valid point, when more people visit this site they are probably not all people who wish to learn more, in fact this has possibly brought more people like the original hoaxer (who I think is an utter moron, but I'm biased). This has not brought the impression that Wikipedia is a useful and accurate information source, rather that it is a source that cannot be trusted. --The1exile 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, this is unwanted publicity for Wikipedia. GoodDay 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was only a matter of time. You can fool some of the people all the time or all the people some of the time, but not all the people, all the time. And time just ran out. --Agamemnon2 10:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Date

According to the John Seigenthaler Sr. article, he discovered the article in September. I suppose this is correct since he notified Jimbo in October. It was obviously not in November since he had already notified Jimbo by that time. Having said that, this mistake was caught within an hour which is good :-) Nil Einne 00:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason for the op-ed

Most talk about the op-ed has concentrated on John's highlighting of the perceived problems with wikipedia. However read the op-ed, it appears he's just as much highlighting his perceived problems with the law in regards to defamation by internet users. Personally I seriously disagree with him since he appears to be suggesting that ISPs either should be liable or required to give up their users just because someone may have been defamed. But regardless, I suppose we should mention the defamation law aspect of the op-ed/controversy too... Nil Einne 00:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just click edit, for christsakes!

Seriously, I am getting angry on that guy. He could have just clicked edit and all his problems would be gone, but oh no, Mr. Important, had to go to all news services and shout about Wikipedia. Juck click edit, you *^&*%! That's the reason it's there! 70.107.247.100 21:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that he is being a little self-centered in this situation. Sure, this info may not have been true, and that's unfortunate, but at least Wikipedia is a source for uncensored material that "anyone can edit". With a lot of hard work, there's almost 1 million articles, and his bio was only a small fraction of that. Gilliamjf 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We must, as Wikipedians, understand that not everyone is as au fait with the wiki process and ease of editing as we are. I am sure we have all shown friends and family how easy it is to add knowledge to this endeavour, once you understand the principles behind the project. We also ask people not to edit entries about themselves ... --Vamp:Willow 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's completely wrongheaded to suggest that Wikipedia can put anything it wants on a page about someone, because after all, that someone can always edit it.... Libel is libel; this controversy is the tip of a very dangerous flaw that can bring Wikipedia crashing down: one big libel judgment, and Wikipedia is kaput; like everything else, Wikipedia runs on money. Bill 22:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this dude responsible for the article as well? Silent dissent and silent agreement both sound the same.

Passive-aggressive?

I fully appreciate that the article describes the offending passage as "fallacious" and "a falsehood." I fully appreciate that the offending passage is now sourced directly from Seigenthaler's own op-ed piece. And I fully appreciate that the controversy made the national news and is therefore a legitimate, if incestuous topic for Wikipedia.

Nevertheless.

The passage was not only deleted from the original John Seigenthaler Sr. article, but from the edit history, and with the edit comment "Delete per Jimbo in IRC."

For Wikipedia to republish this passage, days after its deletion, even in the context of "falsehood," is behavior which, if a person did it, I would describe as "passive-aggressive."

Is Seigenthaler aware of John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? Is Jimbo? Do we think they're cool with it? Or do we have a pretty good idea it would bother them, but have elected to go ahead anyway?

Is this passage reinserted because it is absolutely necessary to the reader's understanding? Or is it just petty pushback against an external effort to influence the content of Wikipedia? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not insert the passage, so i cannot say why the person who did did so. However, it is my view that one cannot fully discuss the resulatant controversy without quoting the passage objected to, clearly statign that it is false. Just as one cannot discuss, for example, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" without quoting many of the false and offensive claims made in that forged document. Libel cases routinely reprint the allegedly defamnatory document in full, to show what the defamation consisted of, and reports on such cases routinely quote the original offending document. I would oppose (and revert) any removal of the quotes from thsi article. DES ^(talk) 17:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't a reader who wants to see the passage click on the op-ed link which the article provides?

I take your point about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. However, the situations are not analogous. It's not as if they had first been published in Wikipedia and had become a focus of national controversy involving Wikipedia itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Because content releveant, indeed vital, to a proper article, should be included in the article itself, not relegated to a link. The content of the false allegations is vital to understanding the resultant controversy. Provided that they are celrly labeld as false and malicious, i see no reason why they should not be included, and every reason why they should. Another analogous case -- soem years ago certian newpapers refused to run particular issues of the Doonsbury cartoon, feelign that it had gone outside of peroper limits for a cartoon. When this refusal became controversial, many of thsoe same papers ran the "missing" strip on their front page, to illustrate what they had ommitted and why -- while defendign their earlier ommission. DES ^(talk) 18:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Grumble, grumble. Mutter. Grumble. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Context makes all the difference between honest and accurate reporting, and vicious slander. The original Seigenthaler biography was the latter. This page--as well as lots of press coverage on the matter--strives to be the former. --EngineerScotty 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

About the son and disambiguation pages

This is kinda OT for this talk page but I hope it's okay since it's relevant. Anyway I'm thinking we should, add a few words to the disambugation page mentioning the controversy. Since the controversy is such a hot topic right now (when it dies down, we can reconsider), and most people visiting the disambig are likely to want to find out about the controversy, I think it's relevant and useful. Currently, I don't think the disambig page gives sufficient info and so many people reading it will not be able to tell without visiting both articles which person they're looking for. It doesn't help that the son's a journalist too I expect. Indeed, if they just visit the article about the son, they might not realise they have the wrong page. Therefore I feel that for now, we should say something like "and is the subject of a controversy involving Wikipedia". Nil Einne 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, my earlier comment about the son also leads to my second point. If you check out the son's page and the history, you'll realise a fair number of vandals and some non-vandals are getting confused and seem to think the controversy is about the son. Perhaps the vandals are just taking it out on the son since they can't edit the father's page. Who knows? But anyway, my point is as I've said, a lot of people visiting the son's page might not realise they have the wrong guy. His page mentions the father but again, given this is such a hot topic, I feel we should mention the controversy is about the father. Either when mention the father, we say something like what I suggested for the disambig or we add a link at the top saying something like, "this topic is about..., if you are interested in his father, the subject of a recent wikipedia controversy visit this page". What do you all think? Nil Einne 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I know I'm supposed to be bold but I'm usually not. However I decided to be this time and have carried out my suggestions. I suppose it's the best way to get feedback as to what people think anyway :-) Nil Einne 20:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Who Is Victor Johnson?

The current revision of this article reports, "Victor Johnson, an old friend of Seigenthaler, was the first person to notice these fallacious claims which he subsequently brought to Seigenthaler's attention."

Would it be possible to tighten up the identification of Mr. Johnson a bit?

A google search yields more than 34,000 citations of the name "Victor Johnson".

I am not promoting an agenda with regard to Mr. Johnson. Instead, I was thinking of news style, which I believe relevant here since this article documents what is at present an ongoing, developing subject.

The AP Stylebook advises, "In general, people are entitled to be known however they want to be known, as long as their identities are clear." That last phrase is relevant here since the expression "old friend", while relevant, does not provide very much clarity. As I recall it, and my recollection is certainly clear on this point, in writing hard news articles concerning legal or other senstive matters other information in addition to the name is required to identify someone appearing in an article in order to distinguish that individual from other indiviuals who may have the same name.

For example, a common standard for local news would be NAME, AGE, ADDRESS. An alternative would be NAME, AGE, PROFESSION.

I am thinking that the citation of Mr. Johnson would be improved if, ideally, it were possible to include his age, his locale in the sense of city or state, and his profession. I realize that it may not be practical to learn his age.

In the event that the source of the information about Mr. Johnson was a news article, and no information other than his name and his relation to Mr. Seigenthaler was included, that article is another example of the sloppy writing that is increasingly passed off as news these days.

And I am thinking that this is not just relevant to this particular article, but ought to be a stylistic consideration when writing many Wikipedia articles. Marcopolo 02:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be that Victor Johnson is exactly as stated: an old friend, otherwise non-notable (just because Seigenthaler is notable doesn't mean all his friends are), who happens to be computer-savvy enough to use Wikipedia. Or it could be something else; we don't know at this point, and I have no reason to doubt the reported accounts. But no--just because someone has a common name doesn't mean that reporters ought to include things like addresses, and other such information, in news reports concerning that person. Especially if said person is on the periphery of a story. --EngineerScotty 03:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I fear that I have expressed myself poorly. I am certain that "that Victor Johnson is exactly as stated: an old friend, otherwise non-notable". I have no reason to doubt any of those facts as you have stated them. I am not entertaining any such doubts. In addition, I would agree that "just because someone has a common name doesn't mean that reporters ought to include things like addresses, and other such information, in news reports concerning that person". My point is that one should include additional information whether the person has a common name or not. And I am not offering my opinion here.

I am explaining the craft of journalism as it has been practiced in newsroms across the country for generations. When you name a person in a hard news article, the correct style to use on first reference is NAME, AGE, ADDRESS or NAME, AGE, PROFESSION. Reporters learn the craft of journalism mostly in newsrooms and reporters who are slow to learn it find that they are working in a highly stressful and frequently abusive environment. Sure, that style of training reporters is right out of the Joe Stalin School of Management, but that is the way it is and for the reason that it works.

And as a matter of personal opinion or analysis here, Victor Johnson is not on the periphery of this story. He is the direct link between John Seigenthler Sr., 78, of Nashville, TN, and the Wikipedia, 4, of the internet (Okay, I am parodying this a bit; I never quite resist that). In the context of this story, Mr. Johnson is not "non-notable". The decision by the writer who put him in the story to do so made him quite notable in the context of this story, and this story is now archived on a website (this one) which is accessible from much of the world. That is why clarity in identification is important.

It is the failure by writers and editors to master and practice the craft of journalism that lands their publishers in civil court facing libel allegations, or possibly on CNN on an otherwise pleasant Monday afternoon being verbally pistol-whipped by an old hard boy who knows his game.

The Wikipedia is very rapidly becoming one of the most widely read publications in the world. And measured in terms of the number of its registered users, it may have the largest staff of any publication on earth. I have previously counseled members of this community to fight the efforts of the old mainstream media to defame, discredit and marginalize this community. I do so again. One of the several ways one does this is through excellence. Marcopolo 08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we being fair to ourselves here?

I'm glad to see this was pulled out of the main Seigenthaler article. However, I think it would only be fair, and truly NPOV, if the article included some of the criticisms that have been made of Seigenthaler, both within and without the wikimmunity, as well as his criticisms of Wikipedia (To wit, that he could have just edited the article and not said anything; that he appears to be a hypocrite as a defender of First Amendment rights who suddenly forgets all about his defamer's due process rights when it's his reputation; that he tarred every editor with the same broad brush and seemed to be another Old Media person attacking the Internet).

I mean, if this was about anything other than Wikipedia would we recognize it as totally fair and complete? I doubt it. Daniel Case 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Typo in my edit: i put (IMHO it's an NPOV fact that this seigenthaler fellow failed to understand the wikipedia mechanism - let's not be frightened about stating a fact about somehow dumb, powerful and aggressive) but it should be (IMHO it's an NPOV fact that this seigenthaler fellow failed to understand the wikipedia mechanism - let's not be frightened about stating a fact about someone dumb, powerful and aggressive). i agree with daniel here.

i also don't believe that jimbo could have imposed the idea of banning new article creation by non-registered people on the en-wikipedia community without a large consensus among users, so my hypothesis is that the article is exaggerating the hierarchical aspect of wikipedia, either out of laziness or just because it's fun to have a God. ;) In any case, i'm not going to do the research to verify this, so others will have to decide whether or not to correct this. Boud 16:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe this question was asked to Seigenthaler in an interview (why didn't he just edit the article). Anyone know his response? I'll try to look it up tomorrow. Gflores ^Talk 16:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Jimbo could and did impose this change effectivly by decree, with little discussion. The idea had often been discussed -- indeed it was high on the "pereenial proposals" list, and the resposnes had always been more or less "will never happen" "against our basic philosophy" and the like -- every indicatioin I saw is that prior to thsi decree, ther was a large (but by no means unaminous) consensus agaisnt any such restriction. DES ^(talk) 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

His reposne on the NPR interview was that he "didn't want to have anythign to do with wikipedia" with the implication that by editing he would be joining the project. See my comments below. DES ^(talk) 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going ahead and putting in sections about the criticisms of both Wikipedia and Seigenthaler. Daniel Case 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why he didn't "just edit this page"

I think it's very clear from his piece that his main issues were threefold:

• The falsehood had been on Wikipedia for months. He acknowledges it was removed promptly when he complained, and he complained as soon as he found out about it. The issue was not prompt removal once discovered. The issue is that it was up for months and nobody verified it.
• He is upset by the fact that Wikipedia's content is mirrored by dozens of other sites which copied the information from Wikipedia without checking it themselves. Hitting "edit this page" would not have removed them from the other sites.
• He is upset by being unable to determine who placed the false information.

"Editing this page" wouldn't have addressed any of his concerns.

And, as for Seigenthaler "not understanding Wikipedia," I think that, all of our disclaimers to the contrary, the general public does not understand Wikipedia either. They think that something that calls itself an encyclopedia should be an authoritative source of accurate information. Mirrors that serve up Wikipedia content and simply call it "encyclopedia article about [thus-and-such]," without any "edit this page" tab, don't help.

Reading his article, although he doesn't say so in so many words, I think it is likely that his first encounter with his false biography was on a site that did not say "Edit this page."

(This, of course, doesn't even speak to the question of what you'd do if someone chalked slanderous attacks about you on your sidewalk and said, "It's just chalk, why didn't you just wash it off and write something different?") Dpbsmith (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

He was asked about this in the TOTN interview, which i heard (it was the way I learned of this issue, as i had been on a wiki-break). I just added a paragraph to the article about his response, Frankly i got the impression that, at least at first, he didn't really understand the nature of wikipedia, or that he could easily remove the info himself from public view. But that isn't what he said, and from whit he did say, he felt that simply editing to remove the false infor was not a sufficeint response. Indeed his main desire seems to have been to get the legal name of the person who added the false statements, although he said he doesn't plan to sue that person if he learns the name. DES ^(talk) 18:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also possible that Seigenthaler did understand how Wikipedia works. In fact, he may have realized that he could have very easily edited the article himself, but he didn't because he also understood that the anonymous writer could just as easily revert it.

Editing the article himself would have set himself up for a lifetime of work-- being a constant sentinal of his own biography in Wikipedia. Try to look at it from his point of view: The incorrect information sat there for four months. Obviously, the system was broken. The system is broken. You can love Wikipedia all you want, but if you do not admit to its flaws and work to correct them, you're just deluding yourself.

Obviously, Wikipedia has problems. Maybe you don't like to hear it, but that doesn't make it any less true. It just means we have to find a way to fix it before something like this happens again. Ravenswood 15:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only would editing the article himself mean he'd have to watch it for the rest of his life to be sure nobody changes it back... he wouldn't be allowed to edit it himself anyway. At least, in the belief of a substantial number of Wikipedians. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and the associated talk page. Ken Arromdee 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, while we acknowledge that he could have edited this article himself, although that is not feasible, he could have complained to wikipedia and then waited while we as Wikipedians try to fix the damage. It appears that in this case, the man who complained to the press is not mostly to blame, instead we should be blaming the original hoaxer. But in an encyclopedia with over 850,000 articles in english alone, there are bound to be a few slip ups, and as Wikipedia runs (or at least ran) on a system of trust, it is almost inevitable that there will be some factually inaccurate and utterly wrong articles. Of course, most people don't see the need to have international news coverage...

Having a friend, family member, etc monitor your biography every week or so - not feasible?? Of course it is. Many public figures are sufficiently egotistical I'm sure they'd relish the process! Wikipedia should put up a home page notice saying 'we take no responsibility for the accuracy of articles in this forum' - and rebrand yourself as a open forum in that way (not a totally reliable source of 'truth' whatever that is). Any legal issues are between Seigenthaler and the author - and Seigenthaler has chosen not to litigate (well done). Frankly if the 4 months without being checked is the main issue, that tells you something about the number of views the page was getting. Perhaps some public figures are distressed their bio pages are not more often read, and hence reviewed? I bet if someone were to deface Bush or Blair's pages, they'll get reverted in seconds!! But don't worry Wikipedia, if the US media giants succeed in commercialising you, you can always move to more enlightened Europe ;) --Johnsparrowuk 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org says "Untrue information posted to Wikipedia, as fact ... was eventually removed by Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales, but only after more than four months anguish and hard work by Seigenthaler." This is false, isn't it? It was removed within days of the discovery. Seigenthaler did not suffer "four months anguish (sic)". --Johnsparrowuk 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

--The1exile 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a mistake, but you have added a comment between my name and what I originally wrote. This, combined with the fact that you rfuse to sign your comments makes me slightly more biased towards your views than I would otherwise be. Please amend this, or I will be forced to move your comments to the end of this section. Also, on one of my comments, I said HE would not watch it everyday. If had had friends to help him with this task, then fine, it is far more feasible task. But still, is it really neccessary to drag Wikipedia into the press?--The1exile 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

True, Bush and Blair's articles are vandalized all the time, but are quickly reverted. I too, thought it was likely that Seigenthaler's article had been viewed only a handful of times in it's libelous state, as very few articles linked there, and I didn't see too many people searching for the guy here at WP. But as the Chicago Tribune writer states (see bottom of this page) Wikipedia articles are almost always ranked highly at google, causing many views via that method. He even states (though doesn't source (doesn't he learn anything from our mistakes?)) that the fact found it's way into school papers and the like. I am glad, at least, the there was no reference to him on the much more viewed JFK assassination page. -R. fiend 17:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But that would have aided detection! Link it to JFK assasination and it would be reverted quickly. If the article really did make it into school papers (studen't work? not teacher distributed documents from the wording) I hope the teachers are kicking their kids' butts for not cross-checking. Obviously you shouldn't rely on anything in an anarchistic system like wikipedia without crosschecking. That should be made more clear. --Johnsparrowuk 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a design flaw of wiki's is that the latest version always has presidence (the page versioning is very linear). Although over time the 'most true' version will be there most often, at any particular second the article could say anything. If you had more of a tree structure in the history, with different branches receiveing votes from regular users, mass opinion would tend to weed out crazy people posting rubbish. "You are looking at the George W Bush article - 3 most popular branches: 1) Oil man and president 3455 votes 2) Monkey in a suit 123 votes 3) George ate my hamster 3 votes". Hey can a get a software patent?? LOL --Johnsparrowuk 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Help write this (if appropriate)

A paragraph I though about adding; but am hesistant to due so (for obvious reasons). When Wikipedia writes about wikipedia, defending itself from public criticism; the site needs to tread carefully and make sure ALL ducks are in a row. Please comment on the following; proposing any additions/deletions that might be necessary for this passage to merit inclusion. The substance of the paragraph is, I think, verifiable.

While Jimmy Wales has apologized for the incident on numerous occasions, some Wikipedia proponents have questioned the manner in which Seigenthaler has handled the incident. It has been suggested that Seigenthaler has motives beyond simply repairing any damage to his repuation caused by the incident; and that he is opposed to Wikipedia itself (and other non-traditional Internet media, such as blogs), and is using this incident in an attempt to cause damage the encyclopedia's credibility.

Should we even consider including something like this? --EngineerScotty 23:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The talk page speculations of angry Wikipedians are not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, no. I intend to add this or something to this effect as such criticisms have been voiced on blogs outside Wikipedia (and, yes, I do have sources. See my post on this at the Village Pump).

I think we are being entirely too fair to Seigenthaler here, as I've said above. Yes, we must tread carefully where we are writing about ourselves. But neither should we cut Seigenthaler slack here that would not be cut anyone if the alleged defamer was some source other than an anonymous Wikipedian. I don't find his explanation of why he didn't edit the article himself terribly convincing — it is little more than a self-aggrandizing way of saying "I didn't realize I could edit it." If he can write for USA Today, he can damn well edit his own Wikipedia article.

As for him having an agenda ... it is not talk page speculation, it is there in black and white in his own words: "I also have an interest in letting as many people as possible know that Wikipedia is an irresponsible research tool".

So? That could just mean that he has an interest in showing people how bad Wikipedia is because this incident has convinced him of that. That's far different from your paragraph, which implies that he opposes Wikipedia for unrelated reasons and is just using the incident as an excuse. Ken Arromdee 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The criticism from outside Wikipedia (which might include, say, the Slashdot thread) has included some legitimate issues besides sour grapes, most notably that Seigenthaler as the founder of a First Amendment law center sounds like a serious hypocrite whining (and he is whining ... I won't say that in the article, but he is whining) about how hard it is to catch his defamer thanks to laws Congress has passed exempting the operators of Internet fora from being sued under most libel laws in the name of protecting free speech. In fact, had he managed to get the identity of the original poster (as someone on the Seigenthaler article Talk page managed to do without having to hire a lawyer — hey, shouldn't this be in the article?) I'd bet we wouldn't ever have heard about this. Daniel Case 03:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What if some notable individual--say, a media critic--in a mainstream media source, were to make the suggestion, and the substance of such individuals words was summarized or mentioned here? (Assume that the person in question is completely unaffiliated with Wikipedia; as an encyclopedia we shouldn't become the news; it's unfortunate that in this case, we already have). --EngineerScotty 00:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd think that if the mainstream media says that he has ulterior motives, we'd better try to find out if that's a minority view or not, and if it's a minority view, treat it as one. This means that either we don't report it at all, or we report it but give it little space and clearly refer to it as a minority view.

Ask yourself: if the media reference had been about anything else other than something you wanted an excuse to include anyway, would you have included it as prominently as this? I suspect the answer is "no", which means you're probably overemphasizing it. Ken Arromdee 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you could quote and source the quote. Even if a wikipedian said this in an essay or interview published in a major media source (no blogs I think) that could IMO be quoted and sourced. But "some Wikipedia proponents" just doesn't cut it. DES ^(talk) 00:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's bad enough to have incestuous article in Wikipedia, although this was a big enough news story to justify it. But we really, really, really need to be careful about neutrality when dealing with controversies involving WIkipedia itself. Let's put it this way: what's the balance of what's been written about the incident in the mainstream press? Did the mainstream press imply, or quote anyone who implied, that Seigenthaler was being disingenuous? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be argued that we're treating the "mainstream press" (if one accepts the theory that it's a monolith) more fairly then they are treating us. We're handicapped, I suppose, by the fact that we're an encyclopedia and not a newspaper; thus we cannot engage in original research or write editorials. Our only way of defending orselves--to the extent that we need to--is to write a well-written, balanced, encyclopedic article on the subject.

Since the press can engage in editorializing (with all its attendent innuendo, speculation, and smear), many are doing so. We seem to be subject to criticism far harsher than has was directed at, say, the NYT for the Blair and Miller affairs. The Times was able to "make things right" by sacking an editor; nobody in the mainstream media suggested that the Gray Lady was now no longer trustworthy, and should thus shut down. (And don't get me started on Bob Woodward). Yet some think that's an appropriate remedy for WP. At any rate, follow the advice of marcopolo above, and write a great article. --EngineerScotty 06:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Scotty; though Wackypedia will never adopt it, your idea is wonderful, and may point the answer to the next generation of Internet collaboration. Reality doesn't seem linear to me, rather a cloud of possibilities; although it may be difficult to implement software-wise, you've really got a winner here. Among many other advantages such a scheme would both represent the majority view (the center of the cluster of articles in the scheme) and respect various minority views, allowing them to stay open, and even to become the majority based on its perceived merits. It would establish something akin to the free market for ideas online, where instead of the present Wiki model (a single "product" at any one time), competing products would be subject to scrutiny at the same time, exactly as in the world of material products in a supermarket or a hardware store. I wish I had the computer expertise to help start this. You should further examine it and promote it. Bill 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rush Delivery

This might be of interest. Apparently Wikipedia's old friend Daniel Brandt is claiming he tracked IP address to a business called Rush Delivery in Nashville: [link removed] Gamaliel 03:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This was Talk:John_Seigenthaler_Sr./Archives/2005/December-3#Who_is_the_anonymous_biographer.3F posted several days ago to the discussion thread under the main Seigenthaler article. I don't know when Brandt made his claim but if it's new it's not original to him.

I have put this information in the article now. Daniel Case 04:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

To be sure, however, we need to know if the IP number has only recently been reassigned to Rush Delivery. If BellSouth pulled the poster's account as a result of Seigenthaler's complaint, we're back at square one. Daniel Case 04:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, info on the IP address is, at this point, original research. At this time, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article until we find a better source than ourselves (or Brandt, for God's sake).

Several other sections which were recently added also struck me as unencyclopedic or unnecessarily POV. I tried to delete them, but someone beat me to it. :)

I did edit the "why didn't he edit it himself" to be more NPOV--being nicer to Seigenthaler.

Probably, the style tag can be removed; the poor-style sections are among what got deleted. --EngineerScotty 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

I deleted most of the following:

Criticisms of Seigenthaler

While many on Wikipedia and elsewhere agreed that he had been libeled and considered how Wikipedia might better prevent this from happening in the future, they felt he "took the wrong approach" [1], as blawgger Daniel Solove put it.

Sweeping denunciation of all Wikipedia editors

But they took umbrage at his blanket denunciation of all Wikipedia editors as "unknown and virtually untraceable ... with no special expertise or knowledge," since many do in fact use their real names as user names or put them, and other identifying information, on their user pages. For Seigenthaler to describe all Wikipedia editors as identical to the one who posted the defamatory information about him was, to them, as reckless and negligent with the truth as his original defamer was.

Failure to personally edit article

Since Seigenthaler or any other reader could have edited the article, Wikipedia proponents asked, why didn't he just do that? Certainly, they felt, more people read the false information when it was repeated in Seigenthaler's op-ed than ever did in the original article. That he instead chose to contact Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation struck them as grandstanding.

Seigenthaler responded to this on NPR. 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. Seigenthaler implied that by editing Wikipedia he would be lending it his sanction or approval.

Others pointed out that even if Seigenthaler had edited the offending information out, or arranged for such an edit to be made, it would have remained on the other two websites at least until their software updated the articles.

Perceived hypocrisy of First Amendment advocate complaining about insufficiently restrictive free-speech laws

In addition to the many editors of Wikipedia, Seigenthaler's op-ed implicitly criticized the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states in part that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Since it meant that he could not sue the Wikimedia Foundation, only his unknown accuser, he charged that "Congress has enabled them and protects them."

Seigenthaler founded and runs the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. Some commentators thus agreed with Jim Hu, the blogger who found it "jarring" that he would write such a sentence as that. "He had a golden opportunity," Hu said, "to explain why protecting speech is worth the cost of having to protect the due process rights of even those as warped as whoever posted his now-deleted Wikipedia entry ... and he whiffed on it." [2].

Old Media vs. New

Since Seigenthaler stated outright, "I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool," and gained most of his media experience in the days before the Internet became commonly used, some perceived a greater agenda in his piece. Hu, among others, reminded him [3] that the old-media model failed to prevent the fabrications of Jayson Blair and Walter Duranty from spreading as far as they did.

Apparent lack of serious interest in finding defamer

Seigenthaler's original distress came from being told by BellSouth that he would, per federal law, have to file a "John Doe" lawsuit against his defamer in order to force them to release his personal information. Even though he had been able to find the original poster's IP address in the edit-history section of the article, and Wales took the time to talk to him and was as helpful as he could be under the circumstances, he devoted the bulk of his USA Today piece to attacking Wikipedia.

While Seigenthaler suggested the cost of such legal action deterred him from undertaking a suit, Solove and Hu both pointed out that the chances of success were high enough to justify it. In fact, he may not have even needed to file a suit, as the post's IP address could be traced back to Rush Delivery, a business in Nashville, simply by typing the IP into a web browser.

Since he had not filed a lawsuit and didn't take other investigative measures to find who had defamed him, it deepened the perception that his real interest lay in discrediting Wikipedia and other Internet information sources.

See: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.

chocolateboy 13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. I figured this would be edited in some form anyway. As long as this is here on the Talk page, which is probably more appropriate anyway, I'm not complaining. Daniel Case 14:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And would the letters column in USA Today be considered a reliable source to justify the inclusion of such criticism? It was seen by as many people in the same space and is external to not only Wikipedia, but the Internet as well.

Daniel Case 14:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Woah. Please don't copy 'n' paste whole articles into Wikipedia (even on talk pages). The article clearly states: "Copyright 2005 USA TODAY".

chocolateboy 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Missed that. Sorry Daniel Case 15:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Did Seigenthaler edit the article?

I didn't hear the NPR interview, but did he come out and say "I didn't edit the article"? Someone did, removing the anon stub and replacing it with Seigenthaler's bio from the First Ammendment Center, an edit that was removed as a copyvio:

07:06, 23 September 2005 . . 69.172.115.157 (This is the correct bio. The previous entry was bogus.)

(Technical aside: This edit is now in the deleted history of John Seigenthaler Sr./temp2 because of the various moves and deletions.)

I'm not sure how much this matters, but it is important that we do not simply assume that he did not edit it or that it was not edited on his behalf. Gamaliel 06:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some sort of response page?

As the author of the original "Criticisms" page mentioned above, I have scrolled through comments here and elsewhere and find that I am hearing a lot of other people saying the same things as I am: that we are being kinder to Seigenthaler than he deserves, even considering that he was libeled.

And I think we all find ourselves incredibly frustrated. Two wrongs don't make a right. Seigenthaler's column exceeded the bounds of a reasonable response. If he were not a former newspaper editor, no editor would have published it as is (I wouldn't have).

He took a completely reckless and unjustified swipe at all of us when he called us "volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects." He indicated that he does not disapprove of just what was written about him (who wouldn't) but Wikipedia as a whole. I think he has an old-media agenda (and I say that as a former journalist myself). He continues to disapprove of an article about him that has to go down as one of the most obsequious in Wikipedia history (Did this guy ever do anything wrong? Show me someone who edited a major newspaper in a city as large as Nashville for as long as he did and didn't leave some messes, no matter what other heroic things he did. Hell, look at Bob Woodward). If it were about anyone else it would be flagged as NPOV.

But I digress ... To say that Seigenthaler's tirade against a nine-year old law that guaranteed online free speech for everyone (or did a lot to) is unbecoming of the director and founder of a First Amendment center, to say that his explanation for why he didn't edit the article himself is unconvincing and to note his failure to follow through with filing a lawsuit and thus uphold the free-speech values he claims to speak do not belong in the article about the controversy. That, I understand.

Nevertheless they are valid and legitimate criticisms that have been made on Wikipedia and off. I believe we need some way of airing them. Perhaps we could have Wikipedia:Community response to criticisms made by John Seigenthaler Sr. as a page for that? Daniel Case 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Show me someone who edited a major newspaper in a city as large as Nashville for as long as he did and didn't leave some messes. Okay, let's find them and record them. Is there some past incident that other editors are keeping out? I don't think it's fair to accuse other editors of assembling a hagiographic article if there isn't anything negative to go into the mix aside from criticism of his article on Wikipedia. Gamaliel 00:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Would love to; however very few archives from that time period are online. Were there no libel/defamation suits filed against the Tennessean during that period? Were there any free community weeklies that did media criticism back then? Answers to these questions aren't necessarily going to be online. It's going to take a little shoe leather to find the appropriate reliable source. Daniel Case 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Still, the central point remains, you can't accuse other editors of painting a hagiographic portrait just because they don't have access to archives of Nashville newspapers. Gamaliel 18:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the mailing list is the canonical place to vent. It's where discussions of that Jane Fonda/Bill Gates article [4] took place. [5]

chocolateboy 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is some sort of open letter type of thing, not a running comment thread. The fact is that we were insulted and smeared on a nationwide newspaper's editorial page, something that not everyone has access to. A lot more people will read Seigenthaler's emotional, vindictive critique then will read any effective, point-by-point response here on these Talk pages. I'm glad USA Today ran at least a few letters, but we need to find a place to respond that is just as public.

Put it this way ... we have no editorial-page equivalent of our own, at least as far as I can see. When a newspaper or magazine gets hit like this, it should rightly keep its emotions out of its reporting, and usually does. But the editorial page can mouth off all it wants (although the paper's lawyers may have other ideas). Since there is no lawsuit likely against anyone save the meathead at Rush Delivery who did this, there's no good reason to keep silent.

I just feel, touring the comments, that there is a pretty substantial group of people here who feel the same way I do and would like to make some sort of public response. Daniel Case 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with any sort of open letter is that it would not represent the views of all Wikipedias. A substantial number of people do not feel the same way and their views would not be represented by this response. Gamaliel 18:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, Wikipedia said for four months that Seigenthaler was "thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby." Not just any assassination, but the Kennedy assassination. Not just one Kennedy assassination, but two.

Our article was inaccurate. Our article was inaccurate in a nontrivial way. This wasn't getting his date of birth wrong or something. This was a gross, important inaccuracy about a living person. And it wasn't a bit of vandalism reverted in minutes.

We pretend we have policies that require verifiability and citing of sources.

For four months, nobody did any fact-checking. Nobody removed the information as unverifiable or as failing to cite any sources.

No, no newspaper would have screwed up this way. I don't think Matt Drudge would have screwed up this way.

Don't try to defend this in public. It's indefensible. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. And just wait until this happens again. Dozens of news sources have published stories like this one in Information Week. The title is "Wikipedia Tightens Rules For Posting" abd the subhead is "After an article incorrectly linked the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy to a former administrative assistant, Wikipedia no longer accepts new submissions from anonymous contributors."

Now, we all understand that logged-in users are just as anonymous as unlogged-in users. And we all know that the headline is a bad summary, and that anyone that carefully reads the article will see that's not what Jimbo said. He said "A person now has to register with the site before contributing an article. By doing this, site managers can at least determine whether a person associated with a specific user ID is submitting false information, and prevent articles from being submitted by that registrant."

But I'll bet that's not what 99% of the people reading these articles think. Just wait until the next Seigenthaler incident happens, and the victim finds that... as perceived by the outside world... Wikipedia says again that it does not know who created the article, after the public thought it had said that it "no longer accepts new submissions from anonymous contributors." Will the general public accept this as good faith? Yes, about as good faith as Clinton's statement that he never had sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't need a rebuttal page specific to this incident. We already have a very good page covering the core issues behind this incident at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor Question

Would it be possible to post the URL of the orginal writer of the now notorious article Here On This Discussion Page, not as a part of the article it accompanies. Or would that be an unwarranted invasion of that writer's privacy. Perhaps it would be. Can anyone offer any guidance on this? Marcopolo 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt says he's found the guy

In a message posted at the Wikipedia Review. Turns out that by absolute fluke, the IP which posted it also ran a web server so the thing was traced back to a company. Says it's gonna be in the papers soon. I'm not editing the main article, because I can't be bothered to think about prose and layout etc. - Hahnchen 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• LOOK HERE - Hahnchen 03:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep. How nice, with apologies and forgivenes. Only one thing missing: will anybody apologize to Wiki?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you suck?? I'm No Parking and I approved this message
    • I personally think it's a great thing for Mr Seigenthaler to have done this. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Chase

Hahnchen, I might agree with you and I'm not really interested in starting an edit war right now.

BUT ... there is already an article on the drummer for the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, who also happens to be named Brian Chase. I think it's only fair to him that any Google search on "Brian Chase"+Wikipedia not leave people with the impression that he's the guy. Something about "false light," you know.

The actual article I did on Mr. Chase really isn't that bad. If the community feels it should be deleted, fine, I won't throw a fit, but I think there have been similarly small pieces done on otherwise non-notable people who have wound up in the middle of news stories. Certainly, I think, a guy who gets Wikipedia condemned as much as it was is encyclopedic, and let's see if there are followup stories (since Mr. Chase is newly unemployed, it's in his interest to talk). He is incredibly lucky he's not getting sued. Daniel Case 06:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Didn't know you did an article, I just saw a redlink and got rid of it. Anyway, I don't think that he deserves an article, as the only notable thing he's done is this. Any information from your article should just be merged with this one. - Hahnchen 06:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, first I want to see if anything emerges in a local paper (Like, heaven forfend, the Tennessean). I certainly don't intend to write his biography, but the information I have there would probably clutter up the other articles.

And doing one thing to screw up something really big is a way to get yourself into Wikipedia.

Mind if I restore the link?Daniel Case 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, doing it as a redirect is fine. Daniel Case 14:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding version of December 16: May I suggest a rewrite of the "Chase Located" section? At least to me, it is not clear by reading this section (a) who Chase is, and what he has to do with this issue (he is only briefly mentioned at the last section of the intro, but that info should be repeated here or moved to here), (b) that Rush Delivery is a company, (c) that Brian Chase worked there, (d) What Daniel Brandt has to do about all this (He may be important to Wikipedia discussions, but he's not the most important person in this article or even this section of the article). (e) Last, the text flow suggests that the phone call made by Brandt is related to the phonecall made between Seigenheimer and Chase, which is probably not related. I fear I'm not knowledgeable enough about this topic to edit it myself (in fact, I turned here because it was unclear to me), so I hope someone willing to do so. For example, the New York times article seem to suggest that Chase contacted Seigenheimer himself, making the whole reference to Brandt almost irrelevant. I can not judge that. Macfreek 09:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)