dannyboy
From the promised LAND
I can post the whole article, but instead will only post excerpts unless some of you die hards want the whole thing.
It would seem that Wikipedia has fallen from having any kind of claim to accuracy in what it posts as fact.
This comes from policy in the past that has allowed anonymous contributors to post and create new files of information. And while they have finally banned them from creating new files, they can still modify existing files without any problem.
Take for instance the biography of John Seigenthaler Sr, who among many other things is the former editorial page editor of USA Today and enjoys wide respect in journalism circles.
"Earlier, in the 1960's, he was an assistant to US Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Recently (as he detailed in an opinion article for USA Today) he became aware of a troubling passage in his biography, anonymously posted on Wikipedia: "for a grief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his bother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
The notion is shocking and manifestly false. officials at Wikipedia greed and they removed the sentences when he complained. But the damage was done. He son discovered that the defamatory material had migrated to Answers.com and Reference.com. It has taken on a life of its own. It may never be expunged from the world wide web.
It is the essence of Wikipedia that contributors can put just about anything they want on the site. How, then can it assert any serious claim to credibility? The Kansas City Star and increasing numbers of newspapers- where reporters and editors spend whole careers trying to get things right-are banning Wikipedia as a source for authenticating facts in a story."
Interesting. I remember a poster lately that tried to bash her points home and using for undisputed proof, articles in Wikipedia. And now it seems that this very same poster, by their own admission, could as an anonymous contributor post anything they want, create new files, or changing any entry they wish without any type of control to content.
Hell, I think I will go there and post that Ronald Reagan was the first president of the USA, not George. Wonder how long that will stay?
Susie, sweetie, I know you are still watching and posting.
This one's for you
d
It would seem that Wikipedia has fallen from having any kind of claim to accuracy in what it posts as fact.
This comes from policy in the past that has allowed anonymous contributors to post and create new files of information. And while they have finally banned them from creating new files, they can still modify existing files without any problem.
Take for instance the biography of John Seigenthaler Sr, who among many other things is the former editorial page editor of USA Today and enjoys wide respect in journalism circles.
"Earlier, in the 1960's, he was an assistant to US Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Recently (as he detailed in an opinion article for USA Today) he became aware of a troubling passage in his biography, anonymously posted on Wikipedia: "for a grief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his bother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."
The notion is shocking and manifestly false. officials at Wikipedia greed and they removed the sentences when he complained. But the damage was done. He son discovered that the defamatory material had migrated to Answers.com and Reference.com. It has taken on a life of its own. It may never be expunged from the world wide web.
It is the essence of Wikipedia that contributors can put just about anything they want on the site. How, then can it assert any serious claim to credibility? The Kansas City Star and increasing numbers of newspapers- where reporters and editors spend whole careers trying to get things right-are banning Wikipedia as a source for authenticating facts in a story."
Interesting. I remember a poster lately that tried to bash her points home and using for undisputed proof, articles in Wikipedia. And now it seems that this very same poster, by their own admission, could as an anonymous contributor post anything they want, create new files, or changing any entry they wish without any type of control to content.
Hell, I think I will go there and post that Ronald Reagan was the first president of the USA, not George. Wonder how long that will stay?
Susie, sweetie, I know you are still watching and posting.
This one's for you
d
