I post this because it highlights one of the most common arguments against new media -- that any form of media that allows participation from non-professionals is likely to be biased or factually inaccurate. (Link to Chicago Tribune source)
A man who posted false information on an online encyclopedia linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations says he was tricking a co-worker.
Brian Chase, 38, ended up resigning from his job at a Nashville delivery company and apologizing to John Seigenthaler Sr.
Chase said he didn't know the free Internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia was used as a serious reference tool.
The biography he posted--since replaced--falsely stated Seigenthaler was linked to the Kennedy assassinations.
A little more background on the Wikipedia story: Chase anonymously edited a Wikipedia biography for journalist John Seigenthaler, adding comments that made it appear that Seigenthaler was linked to the assassinations of JFK and RFK. The vandalism went undetected for several months. After the bio was corrected, Chase was eventually tracked down via the IP address that was logged when he made the entry.
I have to admit that I used Wikipedia for several months before I realized that the articles are all written by the general public, and that anyone can edit them. Still, I don't believe that the fact that this sort of thing can happen is sufficient evidence to condemn new media.
In a traditional encyclopedia, chances are there would be no entry whatsoever for John Seigenthaler. The reason Wikipedia is so large and so useful is because of the collective efforts of the online community. We owe it to our communities to write and speak out on issues that we know about. Others will correct us when we are wrong, or at least argue from an alternative point of view.
But if we leave publishing and journalism up to Britannica, CNN, and Fox News and do nothing ourselves, we will definitely be collectively less informed in the long run.
i like ta smoke dat weed. smoke dat weed.
I still use Wiki, I love it. But when I use it for research, I make sure to cross-check important info. It's good for dates, names, as well as info that would otherwise take weeks of research to compile. For example, it's difficult as hell to research musical genres like Emo or Ska or Grunge and find good bands within those genres or to research the history of the Skinhead movement or who the hell Scott La Rock is, but Wikipedia is so quick for this stuff.
--Mike
what happens if you post false info? are you sued or something??
Only if you slander something. Plus, Wikipedia requires that you cite your sources. On certain articles, you will see [citation needed]. I would cross check that info.
--Mike
Nice place anal vieux leche jeune &&& vieux leche jeune anal &&& bukkake vierge sodomise &&& fellations suce chibre &&& freskos diafenteysi orgasmos &&& tolmiro periodiko orgasmos &&& beruhmt asiatinnen pussyfick &&& beruhmt asiatinnen schlucken &&& mpeg mulatas &&& basso Giapponese &&& raro vibratore &&& strano nude &&& consult &&& contemporary leather sofa &&& momentaneo giocattoli &&& bonny amatoriali spogliarello &&& extravagamment lesbienne chatte &&& extravagamment lesbienne cul &&& riservato dolore &&& carinissimo bikini &&&
i love wikipedia...i use it all the time for my research projects and so far it hasnt failed me.
taking a cue from the rabid phtochoppers out there the smart and sly jon stewart wannabes have taken to vandalizing wikipedia just to be "funny" and make us "think" by offering "alternative" points of view.
http://www.betterhumans.com/News/5269/Default.aspx
Make sure you give to Wikipedia - they are having a contribution drive.
Knowledge is a gift, and is power:
http://ihateunitedstates.blogspot.com