Martin Flaherty on Ethics
I suspect that most of you have heard the latest controversy associated with
For 132 days the site's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr., Robert Kennedy's
him as a suspect in the murder of both John and Robert Kennedy. The statement
is both scandalous and a lie.
However, it remained unchecked for over three months until it was brought to
Mr. Seigenthaler's attention. The verbiage was
but the author - like virtually all contributors to the Wikipedia - is unknown.
Yet, the Wikipedia continues to grown in reputation as a credible source of
It's not only
crackpots and mudslingers altering the content. Recently, former MTV VJ and
early web site developer
and podcaster Adam
Curry was found altering the Wikipedia's section
on podcasting. In it he removed a few names of other developers and rewrote
that he had played a much larger role in its development. His edits and input
since corrected. Curry has apologized.
It's understood that loonies and ego-maniacs have been posting to the web
since day one. And throughout history, from Stalin to Al Gore, people have
weren't in line with the facts. However, I have serious objections to
the Wikipedia. I appreciate
of the site.
But it strikes me as wrong that a site can present itself as a credible knowledge
base but not have to substantiate its content.