WIKIPEDIA passes; journalism flunks

Discussion in 'Media' started by MaggieMae, May 12, 2009.

  1. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    While the veracity of entries in Wikipedia was questionable when it first started up, I've argued for years that it is the best on-line encyclopedia available. (If for no other reason that you can check their myriad sources at the bottom of each page, if you prefer verification of entries, or just want to extend your research.)

    Irish student hoaxes world's media with fake quote

    By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Writer -
    Tue May 12, 2009 8:57AM EDT

    DUBLIN - When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

    His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

    The sociology major's made-up quote — which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer's death March 28 — flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India.

    They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia quickly caught the quote's lack of attribution and removed it, but not quickly enough to keep some journalists from cutting and pasting it first.

    A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud. So Fitzgerald told several media outlets in an e-mail and the corrections began.

    "I was really shocked at the results from the experiment," Fitzgerald, 22, said Monday in an interview a week after one newspaper at fault, The Guardian of Britain, became the first to admit its obituarist lifted material straight from Wikipedia.

    "I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn't come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up," he said. "It would have become another example where, once anything is printed enough times in the media without challenge, it becomes fact."

    So far, The Guardian is the only publication to make a public mea culpa, while others have eliminated or amended their online obituaries without any reference to the original version — or in a few cases, still are citing Fitzgerald's florid prose weeks after he pointed out its true origin.

    "One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack," Fitzgerald's fake Jarre quote read. "Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head that only I can hear."

    Fitzgerald said one of his University College Dublin classes was exploring how quickly information was transmitted around the globe. His private concern was that, under pressure to produce news instantly, media outlets were increasingly relying on Internet sources — none more ubiquitous than the publicly edited Wikipedia.

    When he saw British 24-hour news channels reporting the death of the triple Oscar-winning composer, Fitzgerald sensed what he called "a golden opportunity" for an experiment on media use of Wikipedia.

    He said it took him less than 15 minutes to fabricate and place a quote calculated to appeal to obituary writers without distorting Jarre's actual life experiences.

    If anything, Fitzgerald said, he expected newspapers to avoid his quote because it had no link to a source — and even might trigger alarms as "too good to be true." But many blogs and several newspapers used the quotes at the start or finish of their obituaries.

    Wikipedia spokesman Jay Walsh said he appreciated the Dublin student's point, and said he agreed it was "distressing so see how quickly journalists would descend on that information without double-checking it."

    "We always tell people: If you see that quote on Wikipedia, find it somewhere else too. He's identified a flaw," Walsh said in a telephone interview from Wikipedia's San Francisco base.

    But Walsh said there were more responsible ways to measure journalists' use of Wikipedia than through well-timed sabotage of one of the site's 12 million listings. "Our network of volunteer editors do thankless work trying to provide the highest-quality information. They will be rightly perturbed and irritated about this," he said.

    Fitzgerald stressed that Wikipedia's system requiring about 1,500 volunteer "administrators" and the wider public to spot bogus additions did its job, removing the quote three times within minutes or hours. It was journalists eager for a quick, pithy quote that was the problem.

    He said the Guardian was the only publication to respond to him in detail and with remorse at its own editorial failing. Others, he said, treated him as a vandal.

    "The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn't use information they find there if it can't be traced back to a reliable primary source," said the readers' editor at the Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth, in the May 4 column that revealed Fitzgerald as the quote author.

    Walsh said this was the first time to his knowledge that an academic researcher had placed false information on a Wikipedia listing specifically to test how the media would handle it.

    Irish student hoaxes world's media with fake quote by AP: Yahoo! Tech
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    great post M., and why am I not surprised it got so little attention?

    hmmmmm, ;/(
     
  3. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    I agree, it is a post that should be required reading for all journalists.

    I think this kind of "internet fiction becomes truth" has happened a lot over the past few years, and was one of the reasons for the great amount of disinformation that got us into the Iraq war. Just my suspicion.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Every now and again the media somewhere will publish that urban myth about the scuba diver found roasted to death in an inland forest somewhere. The line is that he was scooped up by a firefighting plane and dumped on the fire. It seems fact checking is off the journalism curriculum.

    I recall a little while ago a report in a British newspaper about a VC winner in Afghanistan (very brave man) who was described as the only British Commonwealth winner of a VC since the Korean War or WWII (I need to do some fact checking of my own!) and it ignored the two VC winners from Australia in the Vietnam War. You know that went around the media in the Commonwealth without correction? It was even published in Australian newspapers.
     
  5. Seraega
    Offline

    Seraega Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    293
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Upstate NY
    Ratings:
    +27
    The sad thing is Academia snubs its nose at wikipedia, which is fully peer-reviewed, but embraces these dumb ass main stream sources.
     
  6. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    I can understand the fear of sole sourcing Wiki -- the OP demonstrates that danger of that. Anyone doing research on an important subject shouldn't solely rely on Wiki or any other source.

    But I've generally found it to be pretty reliable and overall relatively objective and neutral, which is quite an accomplishment in today's partisan environment.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2009
  7. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    It's extremely valuable as a source. Sometimes I have days where I'm tired or don't have my mind on the game at hand (at work, home, or at my favorite pastime--opining!), and I can just Google a few key words, and 99.99% of the time, I will find a Wikipedia page that relates to it. And then the whole thing has jogged my memory. It's amazing, when you think they started out with only five people scanning encyclopedia pages onto hard drives, and now they employ thousands of editors. There is even an edit page which will show you how to go about editing an entry you might think is incorrect. No way is it as easy as it once was.
     

Share This Page