Student hoaxes world's media on Wikipedia

[UncannyGarlic]

When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

The sociology major's made-up quote — which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer's death March 28 — flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India.
...
He said the Guardian was the only publication to respond to him in detail and with remorse at its own editorial failing. Others, he said, treated him as a vandal.

"The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn't use information they find there if it can't be traced back to a reliable primary source," said the readers' editor at the Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth, in the May 4 column that revealed Fitzgerald as the quote author.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30699302/wid/11915829?GT1=40006

Moral of the story, instant news and no enforced journalistic standards (unlike PEs [professional engineers] and lawyers for example) means less reliability in the quality of information.

 

[Maphusio]

When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

The sociology major's made-up quote — which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer's death March 28 — flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India.
...
He said the Guardian was the only publication to respond to him in detail and with remorse at its own editorial failing. Others, he said, treated him as a vandal.

"The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn't use information they find there if it can't be traced back to a reliable primary source," said the readers' editor at the Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth, in the May 4 column that revealed Fitzgerald as the quote author.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30699302/wid/11915829?GT1=40006

Moral of the story, instant news and no enforced journalistic standards (unlike PEs [professional engineers] and lawyers for example) means less reliability in the quality of information.

Interesting age we live in eh? When the newspaper / journalism industry is tanking as bad as it is, one would think a new standard of excellency and quality would become the status quo.

Recently Seattle lost its major newspaper and I do have an inside source that says the competitor in Seattle's rival city is about to call it quits as well. More fuel for the fire I suppose...

 

[Crni Vuk]

Moral of the story, instant news and no enforced journalistic standards (unlike PEs [professional engineers] and lawyers for example) means less reliability in the quality of information.

Hey, not always, the gaming media and press is still working already since a long time that way, no ? And they are still around! Throwing out senseless hype and missinformation.

 

[aronsearle]

Moral of the story, instant news and no enforced journalistic standards (unlike PEs [professional engineers] and lawyers for example) means less reliability in the quality of information.

You're right, the government should set out standards that tell journalists how to behave, it works for china.

 

[Brother None]

Blogs aren't journalism.

Otherwise, I've been critical of the use of wikipedia by journalists for ages. Just like the site is banned for academic use, newspaper editors should really ban their reporters from using it.

 

[Roflcore]

Blogs aren't journalism.

Otherwise, I've been critical of the use of wikipedia by journalists for ages. Just like the site is banned for academic use, newspaper editors should really ban their reporters from using it.

err.. and instead use normal internet with even less reliability..

journalists should learn how to use the wikipedia.

in germany they had the same thing and all newspapers failed as well. those people need to learn how to use the internet. no wonder why blogs are better sources about anything technical/political related

/e about academic use: recently somebody literally bought a paper in a scientific magazine and everything inside of it was fake. they needed it for acceptence/promotion. well I guess I stick to wiki. Ain't nobody buying or selling their

 

[UncannyGarlic]

You're right, the government should set out standards that tell journalists how to behave, it works for china.

Who said anything about the government setting the standards? There is no reason that universities and prominent publications couldn't form a body to do this (just like gaming companies formed the ESRB, different thing but the idea is similar).

Blogs aren't journalism.

Yeah, I get pissed off that they are constantly being referred to as such, in part thanks to televised "news" personalities using them.

Otherwise, I've been critical of the use of wikipedia by journalists for ages. Just like the site is banned for academic use, newspaper editors should really ban their reporters from using it.

Depends on the instructor and institution as it is quite reliable for scientific topics, though you need to know how to use it. Still, it's a bad primary source and really should never be sourced, you should always follow the links to the articles used to write the article as the authors of such can be pointed to.

err.. and instead use normal internet with even less reliability..

That's a stupid statement, of course they shouldn't use random websites. Reliable sources are very important for journalism and part of the problem is that journalists interview people who are not reliable sources in order to write the article.

journalists should learn how to use the wikipedia.

Yep, and the editor at the Guardian agrees.

 

[Brother None]

err.. and instead use normal internet with even less reliability..

...

Ok, this may come as a shock to you, but there were actually newspapers before the internet, and guess what, they managed to operate fine back then. I mean, you do know not all information has to come from the internet, right?

journalists should learn how to use the wikipedia.

Why?

no wonder why blogs are better sources about anything technical/political related

Yes, I too love faux-journalism without any bottoming out in standards or reasonably limits of operation. Wait no I don't.

recently somebody literally bought a paper in a scientific magazine and everything inside of it was fake. they needed it for acceptence/promotion.

I can tell you have absolutely no bloody clue how academic papers work.

Also, prove it.

 

[Roflcore]

err.. and instead use normal internet with even less reliability..

Ok, this may come as a shock to you, but there were actually newspapers before the internet, and guess what, they managed to operate fine back then. I mean, you do know not all information has to come from the internet, right?

Yes, 1800 technolgy today! You do realize newspapers die? It has reasons, too expansive, too slow

recently somebody literally bought a paper in a scientific magazine and everything inside of it was fake. they needed it for acceptence/promotion.

I can tell you have absolutely no bloody clue how academic papers work.

Also, prove it.

Err..so you say I have no clue but I have to prove my quote anyways? Makes perfect sense.
I will ask for the link

if you read dummie-blogs that is not my fault. the blogs I read have standards and are better than mainstream media. can't speak for english, but great german blogs exist (lawblog.de / blog.fefe.de - great information you can't get anywhere this fast)

 

[Brother None]

Yes, 1800 technolgy today! You do realize newspapers die? It has reasons, too expansive, too slow

Yes. Aaaaaand? You seem to be making a lot of disjointed points that don't really relate to the subject of this thread. You presented the alternative for journalists to do research instead of Wikipedia as "the rest of the internet". I point out that's pretty stupid because as a rule you should have more sources of info than "the internet", especially as a journo.

Here's what I'm curious about anyway: this thread topic shows someone utilizing Wikipedia to fool journos. As far as I can tell, that only proves two things:

1. Journalists should not use Wikipedia, because:

2. Wikipedia is a failure as a reliable primary source of information. It is a collection of links to serious academics and journalists. At best. There are better resources than Wikipedia available to us, tho'

Err..so you say I have no clue but I have to prove my quote anyways? Makes perfect sense.

I'm saying the way you're presenting the case shows you don't really know how academics works anyway. And I also doubt it's true anyway.

if you read dummie-blogs that is not my fault. the blogs I read have standards and are better than mainstream media.

I don't really read a lot of blogs at all. The lack standards and peer review is the issue, though, which means that this kind of personal trust relationships exist, as you exemplify, which from a journalistic standpoint don't really work.

Blogs work as they work. They're not a replacement of real journalism anymore than film replaces book, tho'.

 

[Annizzilator]

Still not enough of a reason to consider news outlets as unreliable, it's not like this is the first time it's ever happened and mistakes are generally corrected in a timely manner.

 

[Roflcore]

Yes. Aaaaaand? You seem to be making a lot of disjointed points that don't really relate to the subject of this thread. You presented the alternative for journalists to do research instead of Wikipedia as "the rest of the internet". I point out that's pretty stupid because as a rule you should have more sources of info than "the internet", especially as a journo.

Here's what I'm curious about anyway: this thread topic shows someone utilizing Wikipedia to fool journos. As far as I can tell, that only proves two things:

1. Journalists should not use Wikipedia, because:

2. Wikipedia is a failure as a reliable primary source of information. It is a collection of links to serious academics and journalists. At best. There are better resources than Wikipedia available to us, tho'

Wikipedia is not a failure, journalists are. In this case and in the case were the german media made the same mistake. both could have been avoided if journalists would have used wikipedia like it has to be used. in both instance wikipedia beats your "other sources" (you should point out what they are exactly) in terms of speed, cost and relibility. You should read up on modern journalism, I think your view is pretty rusty with no connection to the actual reality.

I'm saying the way you're presenting the case shows you don't really know how academics works anyway. And I also doubt it's true anyway.

Well I do know little about scientific publishing, but I do know it happend and they didn't even try to cover it up (which was the actual bad thing, because it showed how bad it already is). That you doubt it is true is another sign that you yourself have some idealistic and optimistic view. As soon as I find the news to the source I will of course post it.

I don't really read a lot of blogs at all.

Thats a shame, you are missing a lot of useful information.

The lack standards and peer review is the issue, though, which means that this kind of personal trust relationships exist, as you exemplify, which from a journalistic standpoint don't really work.

Blogs work as they work. They're not a replacement of real journalism anymore than film replaces book, tho'.

Of course they are replacements. Main stream media failes to deliver a lot of stuff. I think it is mostly because of incompetence. Try to find a newspaper which is not technical, but has articles about the internet/computers. Impossible. If you want different opinion/viewpoints on certain topics, like in my case internet & law or censorship, you have to use blogs, because in newspapers there won't be any sort of info, and if there is there are a lot of mistakes. This topic actually proves it, a journalist with some idea about the internet would have known to check the wiki history and would ignore anything unsourced added right before a major event. But since they had no idea and they were pressured they just c&p..doesn't matter if you c&p from wiki, the internet in general, or some "sources" that are slower.

In any case: wiki can easily be used as a journalistic tool, as long as the sources and edits are checked and nothing is blindly copied. on the history page a journalist can actually learn a lot of things too. Not meaning that they should use wiki all the time, but there is nothing wrong with using it. You just got to know how, same as with scientific papers. Don't use one which sells arcticles/spaces as a source.

 

[Brother None]

Wikipedia is not a failure, journalists are.

Yes, they shouldn't have used Wikipedia at all. It is Wikipedia that provided false information, though, I love how you complete gloss over that and try to ascribe it to lack of understand of the functionality of Wikipedia. Whether you agree that it should only be a link-heap for pro's or is useless as a source because they need to double-check everything anyway, its heavily limited usability is beyond question.

"other sources" (you should point out what they are exactly) in terms of speed, cost and relibility.

A good quote from Maurice Jarre? I hope you're kidding me if you think Wikipedia is anything but the laziest source for that.

You should read up on modern journalism, I think your view is pretty rusty with no connection to the actual reality.

Only I do study journalism, and - hey - work as one. I find the naive view engendered by Web 2.0 amusing, but little more than that. People always have exceedingly naive views of the scope and impact of new technologies, while at the same time bemusedly trying to lay blame for inevitable progress on the doormat of individuals, which makes no sense.

I can tell you now that my view of Web 2.0 and its lil' bastard kids will be the predominant view taken by everyone in a decade or so. I'm not rusty, I'm so polished I barely exist.

but I do know it happend and they didn't even try to cover it up (which was the actual bad thing, because it showed how bad it already is). That you doubt it is true is another sign that you yourself have some idealistic and optimistic view. As soon as I found the news to the source I will of course post it.

Still waiting.

Whether or not it happened might or might not surprise me depending on what kind of publication it is. That said, the way you state the case - again - shows you have no real concept of peer review and the way academics work with each other's works. I mean, any paper can "claim" to be scientific, that doesn't actually mean they are, and any running magazine that sells article space (which, to be honest, is such a bizarre concept anyway) would not be taken seriously by anyone.

Thats a shame, you are missing a lot of useful information.

You don't even know what blogs I do or not read nor what kind of information I find interesting. Seriously, stop being peevish.

Of course they are replacements.

Really now? Despite the fact that they have a different set of products to offer with different strengths (speed) and weaknesses (accuracy, reliability), you think they can replace something completely unlike it. I bet you thought screws would replace nails too because obviously screws do stuff better than nails...but wait they don't really do the same thing do they?

If you want different opinion/viewpoints on certain topics, like in my case internet & law or censorship, you have to use blogs, because in newspapers there won't be any sort of info, and if there is there are a lot of mistakes.

The hell? You're talking about specialist knowledge, you dolt, of course you can't find that in newspapers, it's not what newspapers are for. If I want the news on Russia, I read the IHT. If I want an analysis of the situation once it's happened, I'll pick up one of my many background sources, including both academic papers and blogs.

I'm not going to say papers failed because they don't provide what they were never meant to provide though, that's just inane.

In any case: wiki can easily be used as a journalistic tool, as long as the sources and edits are checked and nothing is blindly copied.

So as a link machine. Just like I said.

 

[Roflcore]

Wikipedia is not a failure, journalists are.

Yes, they shouldn't have used Wikipedia at all. It is Wikipedia that provided false information, though, I love how you complete gloss over that.

This is getting really old. You completetly gloss over the fact that they just c&p wiki. Both actual wiki arcticles were 100% correct. If they are unable to tell the difference between vandalism and correct article at wiki, which clearly (!) were visible, they will ofc fail with a search machine and other sources. Obviously this is not the failure of Wiki, but the journalists. Two clicks more and they would have had the correct informations.

A good quote from Maurice Jarre? I hope you're kidding me if you think Wikipedia is anything but the laziest source for that.

While quotes are not most reliable at Wiki (but far better than average internet), normal infos are, like in the case of german minister von Guttenberg. In this case wiki beats your sources in case of speed and costs, at the guttenberg case it is equaly good in reliability.

Only I do study journalism, and - hey - work as one. I find the naive view engendered by Web 2.0 amusing, but little more than that. People always have exceedingly naive views of the scope and impact of new technologies, while at the same time bemusedly trying to lay blame for inevitable progress on the doormat of individuals, which makes no sense.

I don't have any naiv views. I don't use Web 2.0. Your view on journalism remains biased. Not to blame you, its your job, would really suck if you wouldn't think that way.

Still waiting.

Really? Wait, I stop all my day to day activity for an internet discussion..err no. I wait till somebody sense me the link from the article. Sorry, but even if you grew more and more impatient you are not important enough that it matters to me. I know it happend and I will find the source.

That said, the way you state the case - again - shows you have no real concept of peer review and the way academics work with each other's works. I mean, any paper can "claim" to be scientific, that doesn't actually mean they are, and any running magazine that sells article space (which, to be honest, is such a bizarre concept anyway) would not be taken seriously by anyone.

Thanks for pointing that out again, I mean I already said I don't know much about scientific publishing, way to go in a discussion. That unprofessional comment aside: The paper, as well as the one who claimed to have done it, and the magazine itself were all highly acclaimed. I think it was about biological research. It was some time ago and I normal don't care about those things. Like I said as soon as somebody gives me the link/story I will deliever it. But ofc you can rant about this a third and fourth time, I think it really improves the whole discussion.

You don't even know what blogs I do or not read nor what kind of information I find interesting. Seriously, stop being peevish.

You said "almost none". That is sad and has nothing to do with what you find interesting.

Really now? Despite the fact that they have a different set of products to offer with different strengths (speed) and weaknesses (accuracy, reliability), you think they can replace something completely unlike it.

Like I said before (please read): the blogs I named are better than any newspaper in all aspects.

The hell? You're talking about specialist knowledge, you dolt, of course you can't find that in newspapers, it's not what newspapers are for.

Wrong. Internet, Internet Law and Censorship are not specialist knowledge. They are mentioned in newspapers, but 99% newspapers fail at them. The "von der Leyen Kinderpornographie" (child pornography censorship) in Germany is a dead one example. All the newspapers write about it, but they all fail to understand the whole concept and are generally repeating what the government says. Of course the governments plan has obvious flaws but the traditional media fails to check the informations, the just c&p them. While blogs anaylse the content and explain strong points as well as weak points.

I'd love to see a good newspaper and I'd love not to rely on blogs, but it is a sad fact that there is a huge amount of BS printed today.

So as a link machine. Just like I said.

Wrong again, wiki is controlled by thousands of users and every change can easily be seen and checked.

/e damn cenglish

 

[Roflcore]

Whoops, found it. In before post: I was wrong about the following: It wasn't published in a real magazine. But Elseviers name was bought to make it reliable. And if they buy elseviers name for some pr..puh sucks to be them.

http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/

a bit more about it, if you speak german: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/30/30251/1.html

irony: wiki on it appears to be nice too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasian_Journal_of_Bone_and_Joint_Medicine

 

[Brother None]

Uh, so a phony journal made for advertisement purposes? That's not remotely what you said nor does it really shock me since the paper was apparently never taken up into academic circles digital or otherwise. The fact that it could be cited lazily doesn't change that. The only one in the wrong is Peter Brooks, who's an asshole.

Pretending the name Elsevier carries any academic credit is a bit doi, considering what they publish.

Also don't double post.

You completetly gloss over the fact that they just c&p wiki.

No I don't, I've said multiple times now that they were wrong to do so. But unlike you, I acknowledge that they were wrong to do because Wiki is useless as a primary source. In fact, all your arguments indicate Wiki is useless as an unchecked primary source, yet you continue to vehemently deny your own arguments. Schizoid much?

they will ofc fail with a search machine and other sources.

Not really. If I needed such a quote I'd just tap into Lexis Nexis, and no further fact-checking would be required.

While quotes are not most reliable at Wiki (but far better than average internet), normal infos are, like in the case of german minister von Guttenberg. In this case wiki beats your sources in case of speed and costs, at the guttenberg case it is equaly good in reliability.

Not really. Just like any Wikipedia article, any information on it that is not cited is useless, which means that the citations themselves are useful, as they link a working journo or academic to relevant sources, but the Wiki article is not.

I don't have any naiv views. I don't use Web 2.0.

If you use Wikipedia or blogs, you use Web 2.0. We all do.

Your view on journalism remains biased. Not to blame you, its your job, would really suck if you wouldn't think that way.

Huh? I'm not a traditional journalist, dude, I work online, and use any means available to me to do so, including following blogs and utilizing Web 2.0 technology. I just have a more levelheaded view of the whole thing.

Thanks for pointing that out again, I mean I already said I don't know much about scientific publishing, way to go in a discussion.

I was trying to be polite actually. Just saying "you don't understand" a lot without explaining what the misunderstanding is, is just being rude, and I was trying not to be.

You said "almost none". That is sad and has nothing to do with what you find interesting.

How so? I get every bit of information for both my profession and study that I need, and I use whatever is available to me. I don't overuse blogs because I don't buy the hype, I don't underutilize papers because I recognize their function.

Like I said before (please read): the blogs I named are better than any newspaper in all aspects.

Fefes just appears to be a link aggregate, and law blog is a speciality site and hence can not be superior to any newspaper "in all aspects". I'm guessing its reporting of the Georgian crisis was inferior to that of IHT, yesno?

That said, let me try to explain this again. Blogs utilize the infinite canvas of the internet by providing specialisms for everyone and a voice for everyone from idiot to genius. Yes, they are faster than newspapers. No, by definition they are not more reliable.

It is at best an inter-personal relationship. One of my favourite blogs is Field Gulls, the NFL Seahawks blog, because John Morgan does some excellent analysis. That does not mean I sign of on that particular blog as an institution, or have any reason to trust a level of quality from it as an institution, it means I have a personal trust vested in the people writing for it. It is much closer to street gossip than journalism in that sense, and for exactly that reason it is no replacement.

Wrong. Internet, Internet Law and Censorship are not specialist knowledge. They are mentioned in newspapers, but 99% newspapers fail at them. The "von der Leyen Kinderpornographie" (child pornography censorship) in Germany is a dead one example. All the newspapers write about it, but they all fail to understand the whole concept and are generally repeating what the government says. Of course the governments plan has obvious flaws but the traditional media fails to check the informations, the just c&p them. While blogs anaylse the content and explain strong points as well as weak points.

No, they are specialist knowledge. To a specialist, reading a non-specialist write always makes him seem a bit uninformed. Like for me to see the Dutch news talking on Russia, or reading what you type about journalism, it just seems uninformed and ill-researched.

But that's because a specialist already has a built-in framework and set of opinions to bounce other people's opinions off against. Per definition, that means you get the impression that people talking on your subject are wrong sooner than right, even if all they're doing is simplifying the topic or simply disagreeing with your stance.

See, opinions are opinions. You can rage at newspapers for disagreeing with you all you want, but unless they get facts wrong, you don't really have much of a basis to do so.

Wrong again, wiki is controlled by thousands of users and every change can easily be seen and checked.

Which impacts my statement how exactly?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Yes, 1800 technolgy today! You do realize newspapers die? It has reasons, too expansive, too slow

Actually newspapers are dying because the same quality of information or even the exact same information is available for free online. That information is not on blogs but on news providers websites (such as the New York Times and BBC). What's happening is not that the old style of journalism is dying, it's simply changing distribution mediums from print to digital.

Wrong. Internet, Internet Law and Censorship are not specialist knowledge. They are mentioned in newspapers, but 99% newspapers fail at them. The "von der Leyen Kinderpornographie" (child pornography censorship) in Germany is a dead one example. All the newspapers write about it, but they all fail to understand the whole concept and are generally repeating what the government says. Of course the governments plan has obvious flaws but the traditional media fails to check the informations, the just c&p them. While blogs anaylse the content and explain strong points as well as weak points.

No, Internet Law and Censorship are specialist knowledge of which those with law backgrounds can and do accurately write about in specialist publications, specifically law and technology magazines.

If you use Wikipedia or blogs, you use Web 2.0. We all do.

Well, assuming you buy into the whole Web 2.0 bs in the first place, I'm with those who say that it doesn't exist. If it does exist, then it would be along the lines of the factors that led to the September that never ended, specifically the change from completely text to a GUI.

 

[aronsearle]

Is saying Web 2.0 the same as saying next gen console?

 

[Brother None]

Actually newspapers are dying because the same quality of information or even the exact same information is available for free online. That information is not on blogs but on news providers websites (such as the New York Times and BBC). What's happening is not that the old style of journalism is dying, it's simply changing distribution mediums from print to digital.

Well, and it's down-sizing as well. The market is shrinking compared to what it was in the 70s and 80s, but I'm not sure why people make such a big deal out of that or claim that this is somehow the newspapers themselves being dumbasses. I don't agree there. It just is what it is, old tech getting caught up by new tech. Old tech rarely becomes completely irrelevant, though. Even paper newspapers won't, but online newspapers definitely won't.

Well, assuming you buy into the whole Web 2.0 bs in the first place, I'm with those who say that it doesn't exist.

Ugh. To me, this is kind of like saying "immersion". Immersion in video games does exist, it's just not the wow epic factor extremetude ultimate goal of gaming it's portrayed as.

Equally, Web 2.0 is a somewhat hypey but perfectly valid term for some of the significant changes we've seen to the way websites are presented online. There's just no need to make that big a deal out of it.

 

[Dead Guy]

Hmm, I frequently print articles from journals published by Elsevier... it's not like the name is unknown to scientists, quite the contrary, at least in the field of life sciences or medicine. Most of what they publish might be crap, I don't know, but pretty much everyone in my lab knows Elsevier as a publisher because a lot of your search results on medline will take you to an Elsevier hosted site.

I've heard this story about Merck and Elsevier before, I think it's fucked up, but what has it got to do with wikipedia or journalism at all? Scientific journals are not "journalism". There is absolutely no connection to the original post.