Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident
After the hoax was discovered and corrected later in September, Seigenthaler, a friend and aide to Robert Kennedy, wrote in USA Today describing the article as an "Internet character assassination".
[2] The incident raised questions about the reliability of Wikipedia and other websites with user-generated content that lack the legal accountability of traditional newspapers and published materials.
[2] An expanded version was published several days later in The Tennessean, a daily newspaper in Nashville, Tennessee, where Seigenthaler had served in various capacities from beat reporter to chairman.
[10] On December 9, Brian Chase, an operations manager of Rush Delivery, admitted that he had posted the false biography because he believed Wikipedia to be "some sort of joke website".
"[14] In his November 29, 2005, USA Today editorial, Seigenthaler criticized Congress for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects ISPs and web sites from being held legally responsible for content posted by their customers and users:[2] Federal law also protects online corporations – BellSouth, AOL, MCI, Wikipedia, etc.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker."
That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for defaming attacks on citizens posted by others.
And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research – but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.
In an article Seigenthaler wrote for USA Today in late 2005, he said, "I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.
He said he was concerned that other pranksters would try to spoof members of Congress or other powerful figures in government, which may then prompt a backlash and turn back First Amendment rights on the Web.
[4] He stated that one problem was that Wikipedia's use had grown faster than its self-monitoring system could comfortably handle, and that therefore new page creation would be restricted to account holders, addressing one of Seigenthaler's main criticisms.
[16] The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[17] accessible as of May 16, 2012, to around 37 experienced editors and Wikimedia staff members nominated by either Wales or the Arbitration Committee.
Currently such procedures are standardized by the 'Office actions' policy which states: "Sometimes the Wikimedia Foundation has to delete, protect or blank a page without going through the normal site/community process(es).
In reaction to the controversy, The New York Times business editor Larry Ingrassia sent a memo to his staff commenting on the reliability of Wikipedia and writing, "We shouldn't be using it to check any information that goes into the newspaper.
[20][21]The scientific journal Nature conducted a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the Encyclopædia Britannica in 42 hard sciences–related articles in December 2005.
