How I learned Wikipedia can’t be trusted
This isn’t a breaking news bulletin or anything, but you can’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia. For years I’ve defended Wikipedia’s “safety in numbers” philosophy, relying on its many scrutinizing contributors to whittle down the info to ensure it’s accurate. Well, I just had an ironic taste of why you can’t trust the popular site.
OK, so I get a text from a colleague: “Um, Marc, you might want to look at your Wikipedia page.”
“Ya, I know I need to update it” I replied.
“No, I think you better check it out now” was his response.
And so I type my name into Wikipedia and read the wiki about me. Looked fine at first — “Marc Saltzman is a journalist who writes about technology,” etc, etc, etc. Then my eyes fell on the last — and newly added — sentence:
Marc is one of the few openly gay technology writers working in the mainstream media.
Wow!
OK, so let’s start with the obligatory “not that there’s anything wrong with that” line (thank you Seinfeld), but as a heterosexual guy — um, happily married and surrounded by three little kids — I was a little taken back by this untrue statement. Someone is either playing a joke or has a hate on for me.
After forwarding the page around to friends for a laugh (see below) — I mean, what else can I do about this? – I easily deleted the sentence. But it reminded me how anyone, anytime, can change biographical information (or any wiki page) and type whatever they like. Oh sure, the truth might come out, in time, but be aware about the shortcomings of Wikipedia from someone who just exeprienced it first-hand.
Students back in the classroom, be sure to double- and triple-check any Wikipedia information you’re citing in an essay or report.
How ironic as I’ve defended Wikipedia and its user-created content.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go drink some brewskies, watch some football and use my tools on something in the garage!
Virtually everybody with a biography on Wikipedia gets hit by that kind of crap. You were one of the lucky ones. A lot of cases are far worse. Taner Akcam, a Turkish scholar, got wrongly detained by Canadian customs on terrorism charges due to falsehoods added to his Wikipedia biography. Fuzzy Zoeller got named a “wifebeater” with a plausible but false story added which remained on his article for months. He sued but no luck so far. The list of horror stories is massive.
Wikipedia is a menace.
Kato, Wikipedia is quite useful for quick references to questions or issues that are mentioned on the internet or press but otherwise not defined or explained to the satisfaction of some readers. In that regard it’s not a menace.
No one is required to place there bio on it given that we are all seeking to maintain our own security and integrity. Wikipedia with its scratch pad like approach to postings is certainly not the place to deposit personal info.
If you have a need to put yourself on these types of sites you open yourself up to abuse.
Students should learn about the various levels of trust on the internet in general and this is a reasonable place to start.
If everything worked as intended and I wish it would, the internet would be a more accurate and friendlier place.
Taner Akcam did not post his own bio on Wikipedia, let alone add personal information. He had no need to put himself on Wikipedia or any of the other 10,000 or so Web pages where anonymous commenters called him a terrorist.
When he was detained at the Canadian border, the official showed him his Wikipedia bio as the reason.
Prof. Akcam, who happens to be a Turkish scholar of the Armenian Genocide, did not “open himself up to abuse”: he was the victim of malicious, politically motivated mischief.
If an anonymous person slanders Marc Saltzman once on Wikipedia, sure, he can change it. But Taner Akcam was the target of a coordinated, persistent, and organized campaign.
For the backstory, go to Akcam’s Wikipedia page and follow the links to “A Shameful Campaign” as well as the column by Robert Fisk.
Hey Kato,
Thanks for putting it into perspective! Appreciate the comment.
Cheers,
Marc
There is definitely a problem with biographies of, let’s say, not so important people. Generally speaking, the only folks who are interested in them are on the one hand the subject, his family and friends, on the other hand, his enemies and pranksters.
see http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/Marc_Saltzman
“Students back in the classroom, be sure to double- and triple-check any Wikipedia information you’re citing in an essay or report.”
This is what Wikipedia says. You are supposed to use your brain when using it, and check the references given, especially when the information given is surprising.
I tried looking for your Wikipedia page. It seems it was deleted just after you wrote this.
Hey Tim,
Looks like you’re right — they must have taken down my entire page. I contacted their PR dept. to tell them what happened so they must have done that (though i already deleted the inaccurate sentence)!
Thanks for the heads-up.
Best,
Marc
Yeah, that must be it. Except it says it was deleted because it was an “Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject”…
Marc,
I think you’re over-reacting. It was quite a benign bit of mischief. In the interest of biographical accuracy, you could simply have deleted the rogue sentence yourself and said nothing. These things happen on any “wiki”; it’s a kind of grafitti instinct prevalent among the mindless.
And why so defensive? It’s not as if you live in Iran. Whether anyone’s gay or not is no longer a matter of reputation or security. Nowadays who gives a flying fig?
Cheers,
Bettie
It’s sad to read about these problems. Hopefully Wikipedia can work it out rather than get derailed. So far I’ve enjoyed using that site. Jack
Not surprised at all about this article, yet Wiki does serve a very useful purpose overall. The prudent thing to remember about using an “open” site like this is: research and confirm the sources.
An interesting but unnecessary problem any one the uses wikipedia knows any one can add information , and unfortunately being called gay is not really that bad of a thing to call some one true or untrue gay is very popular right now , the poster probably just wanted to increase your popularity. It not there was something completely unbelievable and damaging like :
One of the few openly Neo-Nazi/ Scientologist technology writers working in the main stream media.
or
One of the few married technology writers working in the mainstream media.
Agreed with most here. It’s nothing to get all upset about. You must have known that something like this would eventually happen right?
I mean anyone can put things on your ‘bio’ page, and there will be people who will say stuff like that (or worse) about people.
So you have to expect this kind of thing.
I’m surprised that you would defend wiki (in the past) so much though. Even most middle schooled kids know enough to not trust wiki that much. (At least they did at my school years ago.) Years ago, everyone on earth thought it was flat, until one man said otherwise.. Thus proving just because millions of people believe/ say something, doesn’t mean it’s true. Same with wiki.. Just because hundres/ thousands of people edit topics, doesn’t mean that topic is accurate.
Wiki is used as a ‘first thing you go to in order to get info.’ Then you go to other sites to research what you found on wiki is true.
I believe in your “safety in numbers” philosophy. But not as you do and the more people that edit it, means the more true it must be. I believe in the more sites you go to, the more accurate your info will be. If you use wiki for all your info.. Your in trouble!
I’m sure few if any were looking for your bio on Wikipedia………but now that you made a news story about it…..now everbody knows the truth. Really, I don’t mind if your gay or not.
This was clearly just a vandalisation of your article. It’s completely gone now, so you should rewrite it yourself.
I think a few of the comments are missing the point. The content of the inaccurate information (eg. that the writer is gay) is not the issue. Mr. Saltzman is not “over-reacting” to that particular false statement; he is merely describing a predictable problem with an information source that is not underwritten by any authority on any subject. Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia whether for silly mischief or more sinister purposes such as the Taner Ackam case already mentioned.
Wikipedia is fine as a quick fix for matters of idle curiosity, but when a person’s freedom is put in jeopardy due to information maliciously altered and then taken as fact by officials, I don’t think calling attention to Wikipedia’s shortcomings in the area of verification of source material is over-reacting in the slightest.
There’s a lot of naivety in the comments here. This incident is quite benign, but illustrates the problems unleashed by Wikipedia. For one thing, people like Taner Akcam aren’t self publicists who added themselves to Wikipedia. These articles are started by anonymous Wikipedians, sometimes to attack the subject. People really started noticing the Biographies of Living People timebomb in 2005, after John Seignethaler discovered malicious lies linking him to the Kennedy assassinations, which were on his biography for months. Seignethaler wrote extensively about it in the media, and explained that if these lies aren’t removed early enough, “scraper sites” which automatically import Wikipedia content can perpetuate the lie for years. Many biographies become venues of revenge.
Journalist Seth Finkelstein found his biography hit by an anonymous enemy, and struggled for two years to have his article removed, writing articles about it. Daniel Brandt found after he saw his bio and tried to “opt-out” on privacy grounds, that act enraged Wikipedians, who campaigned against him using his biography as the weapon. The anonymous mob (backed up by Jimmy Wales) declared he had no right, abused him relentlessly from the site, and threatened to stalk him for photographs and private info to add to his page. Brandt fought back, and eventually his biography was deleted after two years where he attacked Wikipedia on every front.
If you were on the inside, or personally familiar with Jimmy Wales, you had an easy ride. For example, Wales orchestrated a favor-for-favor deal with journalist and love interest Rachel Marsden which saw her bio protected by leading Wikipedians.
Wikipedia became known as the biggest defamation machine in the world, a term even used by Rachel Marsden herself, after Wales dumped her on Wikipedia and their deal was through.
More recently, Jimmy Wales and leading Wikipedians began to get wise to the chaos they were creating, and called for gradual measures to be added to Biographies of Living People. They call it “flagged revisions” which would mean vetting processes on edits. The Wikimedia Foundation need tread carefully though because any appearance of editorial control could mean their asses get sued from coast to coast. There’s certainly enough people for a class-action. Nothing has happened on Wikipedia yet regarding “flagged revisions”, but if it did, it would likely end the kind of nonsense Marc Saltzman dealt with.
Hi There,
This is one of the funniest articles that I have read lately. I think wikipedia is a great tool, but we have to remember, everything that is on it has come through someones subjective interpretation. Maybe whoever added that line was just doing some creative wishfull thinking?
You’re welcome, Marc.
I was the one who changed your Wikipedia write up, not because I don’t like you, but because I don’t like a lot of people in your profession, pitch men.
Masquerading advertising as review and criticism is the single worst and most prevalent problem in technology journalism today (all journalism, actually, but it’s especially bad on the tech side).
Watching you pitch me overpriced junk before my movie starts (in Cineplex theaters) is infuriating.
Does anyone really need a Swiss Army Knife with a USB stick for camping? What am I going to do, plug it into an owl? Perhaps I should buy one the most overpriced netbooks on the market when there are dozens of cheaper and more reliable alternatives? Maybe I need the ugliest, most clothespin-like headphones available? Or maybe I need to be recommended GPS on an almost monthly basis? And when you “recommend” those products under the guise of environmentally conscious behavior or to poor students going back to school, it’s even worse.
You can’t honestly say that, as a consumer, anything you’ve recommended in those segments is the best deal, the most useful model or, sometimes, even a sensible purchase. You’re advertising.
You can’t be both a journalist and a salesman.
I don’t expect you to stop. Hey, you’ve got a wife and three kids to feed. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
I would, however, like to remind you that if you’re going to treat technology journalism like your own personal toilet, expect a little splash-back.
You’re welcome for the free column, maybe you can repay me by taking my advice to heart.
Edgar, you raise a good topic for conversation, but if in fact you were the one who altered Marc’s bio on Wikipedia, you’ve undermined your own credibility.
Changing a Wikipedia entry, especially with a lie that not only attempts to bait Marc but at the same time shows tremendous disrespect to the gay community, is the virtual equivalent of spray-painting a slur on the wall of an institution you dislike.
And yes, an institution can clean up the graffiti just like Marc can go an remove the bogus statement, but meanwhile the damage is done.
You sound like an intelligent person. Perhaps since you’re so fond of giving advice, you’ll take a little too: Next time you feel like expressing your disdain for someone’s work, write them an email. Write to the company that hired them. Write to the theatre chain that airs the videos they create.
Just don’t use a public resource like Wikipedia as your own personal brick wall. It’s a nasty, passive-aggressive tactic that you should leave to the people who don’t know how to express themselves as well as you.
I don’t agree that Wikipedia is a “public resource”. If you watch it for long enough, you realize it is just one vast vanity project with Ayn Randian political undertones. Wikipedia pays lip service to notions of free information for the masses, but is really driven by what Andrew Keen calls digital narcissism and petty revenge. We’re not talking about an altruistic educational project here.
Sure, it can be a useful site on a superficial level, but Wikipedia’s sub culture is dysfunctional and thrives on conflict. Naming and shaming is de rigueur, and the internal structures lack any responsible methods to ensure due process. It’s a return to a lawless environment of witchhunts with rampant unaccountably.
Since this posting, there was an interesting article discussing Marc Saltzman’s biography, which also covering the abuse directed at journalist Ed O’Loughlin. O’Loughlin found his bio was seriously hampering his reputation after it was created and used by pro-Israeli partisans to attack his writings on the Middle East. He articulated his position well and managed to get the article deleted.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWorld/2009/09/14/10898116.html
My credibility? My screen name says “Edgar,” not “Edgar the technology expert.”
I’m not pretending to be anything.
If I had written “Marc is a large African rhino” in Wikipedia, it would have been deleted instantly because of its incredulous nature. However Marc being gay is perfectly plausible (assuming you didn’t know he had a wife and kids, which I did).
Marc is masquerading as a technology expert for Cineplex, when he’s in fact a pitch man. His tech advice appears perfectly plausible to an audience (assuming you don’t know it’s deceptive, which a lot of people do not).
By making my point in such a brash manner using technology, I think I’ve illustrated quite well the importance of accuracy in reporting, and done so in a way that wouldn’t be swept away silently from Marc’s inbox. Mark the Rhino isn’t wouldn’t have made Marc’s copy.
If he’s so concerned about information being accurate and founded in genuine human exchange, perhaps he should try applying those concepts to his own work.
As for being offensive, I think it says much more about the way you view homosexuals than anything else. Are homosexuals so weak and excitable than incorrectly labeling someone as being a homosexual would send shockwaves of hurt feelings throughout the gay community? And at what point did I suggest that being a homosexual writer was a pejorative? You added that connotation entirely on your own.
I have no interest this turning into some draw-out comment box debate, so I’ll sum up my point thusly: A dog doesn’t bite the hand that feeds it only because of how satisfying the food is. We, the interactive new media audience, are going to satisfy you, with or without the big hand making you do tricks. Poop where you eat at your own risk.
I just want to point out the having a wife and kids doesn’t mean you’re not gay , it just means your not “openly” gay. Marc is mad that someone is trying to out him on wikipedia becuase it’s really a very personal decision.
Quote : “now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go drink some brewskies, watch some football and use my tools on something in the garage!”
This is Marc’s idea of proper heterosexual male behavior?
I’m pretty sure 1 or 2 gay men like beer, 3 or 4 might watch or even play football,and im certain most are capable of using tools.
Also this already happened to Anderson Cooper, Lets try and be original Marc S.
Edgar, you can attempt to justify your actions any way you like, but it doesn’t change the facts. You chose to deface a public website instead of dealing with your opinions in a responsible manner.
I don’t think it was the right thing to do, and judging from the other comments on this post, I’m not alone.
Dear Edgar
First of all, you start out sounding like a jackass. “You’re welcome, Marc.” You’ve already lost most of my respect, proving you’re just trying to jab Marc (and his career) where it hurts, rather than make an informed point on his career.
Secondly, you comment on his personal life. Not his career, not his opinions based on which his journalism has been the backbone, but what his lifestyle as a human being may be. That’s just low. It doesn’t matter if he is or is not gay. It’s that you put that up there, with obvious intent to hurt the man. That’s not something you should be posting in a malicious manner.
I don’t think there really is a gay community (no other sexuality really has one), but even if there is, I don’t think they’ll take offense to this, one way or the other. What is offensive is that you just fling it out there, hoping to use it to your own means. Really? That’s how you try and get your point across? Don’t you want to try something… useful?
Wait, no. You’re trying to undermine his opinion as a journalist, because he helps advertise for a company. And you did this by trying to make people believe (for whatever reason) that he was gay?
Either you seem to believe that you’re some radical journalist, trying to ‘fight the power’, or ‘stick it to the man’ by mislabeling Marc as gay (which draws all attention away from any point you are trying to make, and simply focuses it on the fact that you purposely labeled a man gay, whom you thought was straight), or really didn’t post that stuff on wikipedia and were just trying to get a rise out of people. I’m hoping it’s the latter, but have a (sad) feeling it’s the former.
Alex,
That “brewskies” comment obviously was meant as a joke. I was showing I could be a good sport about the incorrect comment that was posted on Wikipedia (whether it was Edgar or not). I’m well aware homosexual men also like beer and football! LOL.
Cheers,
Marc
Edgar,
I didn’t respond to your initial comment because Simon, my editor, mirrored my thoguhts exactly: if you have issues with my “journalism,” you should be contacting me or Cineplex and not writing incorrect information on a wiki page (and disparage the gay community by trying to “out” me as a joke, as if it was an embarassaing thing to be homosexual).
I have no issue if you don’t like my spots at Cineplex. I guess after hosting these video segments for 13 months I’m bound to have someone tell me they don’t like them, so that’s cool. It’s the manner in which you chose to tell me (or the world) you didn’t like them is the issue.
As far as being a “pitchman,” those spots aren’t informercials. I choose 3 to 4 products per segment that I like — and all fit a theme (such as “green” tech, camping tech,” back-to-school tech, etc.) — and because I’ve chose them, of course I’m saying nice things about them. I also don’t get paid by these companies to talk about their products, as a pitchman does. That said, “Gear Guide” isn’t meant to critically review a product — there are plenty of outlets for that, such as Sync, Cnet, Engadget, Techcrunch, etc.
Marc