Irony Alert: Article Blaming Wikipedia For Unreliable Info Gets Its Facts Wrong
from the funny-how-that-works dept
This certainly isn't the first time something like this has happened, but a news article that a tribunal ruling in Australia was set aside for relying on Wikipedia, actually gets the story wrong. The tribunal ruling wasn't based on Wikipedia, but a totally different wiki-based encyclopedia. Now, if that article with the incorrect info had been on, say, Wikipedia, as soon as this had been noticed it would have been corrected. But, instead, you have an article that's been online for quite a while and remains with incorrect info. It's just extra amusing that that incorrect info is falsely blaming Wikipedia for being unreliable, when this article proves that just because wikis are editable and news sites aren't, it doesn't mean that one is inherently more unreliable than the other.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
You just have to by Mike F.M on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 4:53am
You just have to love it when stuff like this comes back to bite them on the ass.
Wiki-based pages are brilliant - IF you know how to use them correctly.
i.e Understand that the information is a collective effort
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 6:04am
That's coincidence. Irony is putting your utmost trust into someone about to kill you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Reliability by Newsboy on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 6:09am
Even major news sources are wrong some of the time. Television news is especially poor.
One big problem I have noticed in news is that often people who write articles are not specialists in that particular field. So a news article about wikis may be written by someone who barely knows how to use a wordprocessor.
This problem coupled with the sensationalist trend news is following tends to result in some very big journalistic mistakes.
Even when facts are used they are often taken totally out of context or era.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
why wiki is better by Wolfger on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 6:48am
When a story hits page 1 of the newspaper with false info, the retraction (if any) is on page 8, in small print.
When a story hits TV with false info, there is virtually never any retraction.
When a story hits Wikipedia with false info, the correction appears in place, with a history of what the page used to say, and a log of the discussion surrounding the facts.
Which do you prefer?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
two cents worth by Trouble Maker on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 7:25am
But did the writer claim respondsibility for thier work? NOPE! Just blame someone else.
I guess the writer belives everything they see in writing.
Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable. Writers are Unreliable.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Reference by Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 7:28am
We had a special bond issue election yesterday. The day before that, we got a flier on our door from the opposition of the bond and the reasons why. One of their points was supported by a reference to Wikipedia. I immediately decided to vote yes. (OK, that really wasn't the only reason I voted yes) At least you could go to the said Wiki page and find the reference for that and put it into your claims.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
# of Comments? by Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 7:58am
That's weird. It says above that there are 7 Comments but there are only 6. If the trend continues, it will say 8 Comments and only 7 will appear. Or I will be completely made to look like a fool.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Hoeppner on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 8:17am
the only sane way to use a wiki is to browse through it. then proceed to look at the used resources that they list.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mysterious Comment Number by j0rg3 on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 8:20am
You still look like a fool for ever challenging the Chuck Norris, fool!
Yet the misnumbered comment mystery carries on.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not quite as wrong as that by Petréa Mitchell on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 9:07am
Actually, the body of the article gets the source right-- the only error is in seeing something that looks and acts just like Wikipedia and assuming that it is, in fact, Wikipedia. We will probably have to live with this sort of linguistic drift, unless we want to get all anal and police our generic usages of "band-aid", "kleenex", and so forth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mysterious Comment Number by mkam on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 9:08am
There are numbers on these comments. Where?
All I get is
Mysterious Comment Number by j0rg3 on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 8:20am
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number by mkam on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 9:10am
Ah never mind I see. If you do threaded (like I do) you only get bullets. If you view in 'flattened' mode you see all the numbers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not really about wiki by Anonymous on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 9:19am
The problem here was not with the fact that it was a wiki article. The problem was that the tribunal had used facts which were not relevant to the case. They made some assumptions about a statement that were wrong and got caught.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 10:42am
I've had numerous problems with Wikipedia editors. They don't understand linux and seem to think everything should be written for the guy on the street. They want no technical information such as on higher math or statistics based on performance measurements. It's very frustrating to have them remove data and such. I have come to the conclusion blogs are the way of the future since we don't have to put up with opinionated know nothings there...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: two cents worth by Anonymous Coward on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 10:47am
So that would make this post unreliable, wouldnt it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 10:48am
I've had numerous problems with Wikipedia editors. They don't understand linux and seem to think everything should be written for the guy on the street. They want no technical information such as on higher math or statistics based on performance measurements. It's very frustrating to have them remove data and such. I have come to the conclusion blogs are the way of the future since we don't have to put up with opinionated know nothings there...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony by inc on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 11:02am
A typical use of irony of fate occurs in the climax of Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Frollo, the villain, stands upon a gargoyle. He raises his sword to strike Esmeralda, and says, “And He shall smite the wicked and plunge them into the fiery pit!” At that moment, the gargoyle breaks off, sending Frollo falling to his death into the courtyard, filled with molten lead that Quasimodo had spilled to stop the oncoming guards. The irony is that Frollo’s line is used in reference to Esmeralda, but instead it winds up applying to Frollo himself as he plunges into the fiery pit of molten lead.
Situations resembling poetic justice, but lacking the aspect of justice, may also be ascribed to the irony of fate.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Mysterious Comment Number by Dennis on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 11:02am
Ooops.. thanks for pointing that out -- fixed the comment count bug now..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: why wiki is better by Ron on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 2:25pm
Exactly! (I prefer animated TV by the way--less facts to get wrong in the first place).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Opinionated know-nothings :-) by Anonymous Coward on Jul 25th, 2007 @ 3:06pm
...some of the most opinionated know-nothings I know express themselves in the blogosphere
...or did I miss the sarcasm?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Kel on Aug 1st, 2007 @ 6:15pm
no that is actually irony
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment