This is excellent:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-02/goods_next.php
It may also be a good experiment to suggest to teachers in general if they're trying to explain Wikipedia.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
This is excellent:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-02/goods_next.phpIt may also be a good experiment to suggest to teachers in general if they're trying to explain Wikipedia.
- d.
Who launched the latest rumor that Mitch Kapor was a co-foundor ?
:-)
ant
I'm not particularly found of that last line "Try to add something and see how it lasts", but at least he hammers on the fact you always need to cross check and that even in a class of ninth-graders cooperative editing works better than one thinks.
Mgm
On 2/3/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This is excellent:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-02/goods_next.phpIt may also be a good experiment to suggest to teachers in general if they're trying to explain Wikipedia.
- d.
Who launched the latest rumor that Mitch Kapor was a co-foundor ?
:-)
ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From the article: Last November, false information was appended to the Wiki biography
of American journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., suggesting he played a role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The erroneous facts made their way into the mainstream media as truth.
Is this true? I hadn't heard that anyone had actually relayed the information as truth. There was speculation about how many millions of internet viewers had believed the article (without any of them correcting it), but I hadn't heard this.
Steve
On 2/3/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not particularly found of that last line "Try to add something and see how it lasts", but at least he hammers on the fact you always need to cross check and that even in a class of ninth-graders cooperative editing works better than one thinks.
It sounds like they misunderstood even the basic facts of the story.
(Gosh, newspaper prints false information under veneer of truth! But... I thought these things only happened on the internet!)
FF
On 2/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
From the article: Last November, false information was appended to the Wiki biography
of American journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., suggesting he played a role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The erroneous facts made their way into the mainstream media as truth.
Is this true? I hadn't heard that anyone had actually relayed the information as truth. There was speculation about how many millions of internet viewers had believed the article (without any of them correcting it), but I hadn't heard this.
Steve
On 2/3/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not particularly found of that last line "Try to add something and see how it lasts", but at least he hammers on the fact you always need to cross check and that even in a class of ninth-graders cooperative editing works better than one thinks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
From the article:
Last November, false information was appended to the Wiki biography
of American journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., suggesting he played a role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The erroneous facts made their way into the mainstream media as truth.
Is this true? I hadn't heard that anyone had actually relayed the information as truth. There was speculation about how many millions of internet viewers had believed the article (without any of them correcting it), but I hadn't heard this.
It is 100% false. The simple fact remains that *now* this little tidbit is permanently on the Internet, because *Seigtenthaler* published in USA Today and went on multiple television news programs to talk about it.
Had it done nothing, it would be like any of millions of other little vandalisms of Wikipedia that are fixed and in the history, but never to be seen again.
There are other factual errors as well. It is not true that "Last November, false information was appended" -- in fact the false information was *removed* in *October*. Other outlets like to report that it took Seigenthaler 4 months to get us to correct it -- whereas it was corrected within minutes of course.
David Gerard schrieb:
This is excellent:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-02/goods_next.phpIt may also be a good experiment to suggest to teachers in general if they're trying to explain Wikipedia.
very funny. teachers begin to explain to pupils how to use wikipedia for doing their homework with wikipedia. ;-)
heinz
Heinz wrote:
David Gerard schrieb:
This is excellent:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-02/goods_next.phpIt may also be a good experiment to suggest to teachers in general if they're trying to explain Wikipedia.
very funny. teachers begin to explain to pupils how to use wikipedia for doing their homework with wikipedia. ;-)
There's a template that's sometimes used on the refdesk for exactly that purpose:
{{dyoh}}