Internet Accuracy Disputed

'NET HEAT

Former Kennedy Aide Furious, Conservatives Also Get Hit



When researching Internet information, does anyone really expect one hundred percent accurate results? Don't most people realize it's often full of unintentional, or even malicious statements about others?

Particularly for those in the public eye, I'm amazed at the shock expressed over misleading and false characterizations. Are they new to the 'Net? That's why John Seigenthaler's intense public outrage over his inaccurate Wikipedia entry is especially bizarre:

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, is tightening submission rules after a prominent journalist complained that an article falsely implicated him in the Kennedy assassinations.

Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Web site, said Monday. People who modify existing articles will still be able to do so without registering.

The change comes less than a week after John Seigenthaler, a one-time administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy, complained in an op-ed published in USA Today that a biography of him on Wikipedia claimed he had been suspected in the assassinations of the former attorney general and his brother, President John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia, often cited as a prime example of the type of collective knowledge-pooling that the Internet enables, has some 850,000 articles in English as well as entries in at least eight other languages, including Italian, French, German and Portuguese.

Since it's launch in 2001, it has grown into a storehouse of information on topics ranging from medieval art to nanotechnology.

The volume is possible because the site relies on volunteers, including many experts in their fields, who submit entries and edit previously submitted articles.

Wales said he hopes the registration requirement will limit the number of articles being created. (Seattle Times/ AP)

If he really wants a proper perspective on malicious statements, Mr. Seigenthaler might care to check out some of the sleazy message board chatter aimed at yours truly. Almost entirely inaccurate, I have little recourse, except to continue the Air America investigation that clearly drives them nuts.

While Wikipedia can be useful as a research starting point, it shouldn't be taken as gospel. Wouldn't Siegenthaler's best course of action, however, have been to first ask for entry corrections?

Wikipedia biographical articles seem to be created either by an individual's biggest fans, or most bitter enemies. In addition, despite being open to input from anyone, there have been allegations of an overall liberal bias in the resulting stories.

Used by mean-spirited critics to launch personal attacks, Michelle Malkin's entry provides one of the all-time best examples. In addition, Malkin's enemies work to downplay her accomplishments by removing passages related to career highlights. Sometimes they are later restored, such as the paragraph related to our Air America Radio investigation.

Most Wikipedia entries have discussion pages, that's where Malkin's detractors really become "unhinged".

Another notorious Wikipedia article is Bill O'Reilly's, a lengthy, mostly negative hit piece on the FOX News Channel host. Also not to be missed is one for Rush Limbaugh.

My piece is here, somehow I've now become an "American conspiracy theorist". The Wikipedia term for this is "vandalism".

Some major bloggers don't yet have personal entries, including "Captain" Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters. Powerline's Scott Johnson is found here, and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit here.

In the Air America scandal entry, Michelle and I have been completely stripped away, as though we had no role in breaking this story. After months of very hard work, I think we have the right to object to this rewrite of history.

In fact, Air America fans actually petitioned to have the entire piece removed, hoping the truth could be surpressed, but this was recently rejected by Wikipedia.

On the flip side, liberals closely guard articles about Al Franken, Air America Radio, Janeane Garofalo and others, keeping to a minimum any recognition of their detractors, especially in Franken's case.

What we can do is monitor these stories and edit out false information. Would you be willing to help? All of these entries are overdue for significant scrutiny. Please be sure to back any additions with links to sources and keep personal opinions out of the entries.

Keep me posted on your participation and the responses it generates. Warning: to take on some of these slithering creatures, you'll quickly need to develop a strong skin.

UPDATE: BBC coverage of Wikipedia flap

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers

UPDATE: Reference to myself as "American conspiracy theorist" just removed by Wikipedia.

UPDATE: Blogger La Shawn Barber's had a similar Wikipedia experience:

"When I found out, I asked them to remove the entry unless they deleted a link to what I considered a libelous "anti-La Shawn" blog. They refused. There was a big controversy over the entry, and a swarm of voting to delete ensued," Barber says.

"Unfortunately the 'Keep' side won. I asked them again to remove the entry or the link once again. They refused. They even quote one of my blog posts on Islamic terrorism in their 'Islamophobia' entry!

"Their reference entries for things like the Star Wars movies and the Harry Potter series are great; their entries on political subjects are atrocious."


Shopping today? Why not support the Radio Equalizer at the same time? Your Amazon orders that originate with clicks here, regardless of your final selections, help to support this work. Thanks again for your vital assistance!

Image: Wikipedia