by Mike Masnick
Wed, Jul 25th 2007 4:27am
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.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- FL Senate Candidate Tries To Edit Scientology Links From Wikipedia Page, Streisanding Those Links Everywhere
- Swedish Court: Wikipedia Hosting Photos Of Public Artwork Is Copyright Infringement For Some Reason
- Angolans Turning Zero-Rated Wikipedia, Facebook Into Ad Hoc File Sharing Services
- Bernie Sanders' Campaign DMCAs Wikimedia For Hosting His Logos
- Argentina Plans To Increase Copyright In Photos From 20 Years To Life Plus 70 Years, Devastating Wikipedia