|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people?
#14567871 - 06/06/11 03:07 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Recently I was listening to the Mike Gallagher show, a generally conservative talkshow, and he was bitching about Wikipedia, Wikipedia readers and editors, and the accuracy of his Wikipedia entry.
He said he was 'forced' to hire someone to watch his Wikipedia entry and make sure no defamatory or inaccurate information was posted. Throughout his rant, he criticized the notion of anybody being able to write about him in an article, the notion that people would think Wikipedia an authority, and the notion that he has to hire someone to make sure he isn't defamed or that people aren't misled about him. He also said that people aren't aware of the way the media misleads them and that it is unfortunate that 'freaks' who sit 'in their basement, wearing underwear', can write about him on Wikipedia.
What do you think about these concerns and the similar arguments about/against Wikipedia? Does Gallagher have a good point? Are his claims, as related through this post, accurate and important? What, if anything, should be the approach of Wikipedia and/or the world's governments to these concerns? Why?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: johnm214] 1
#14568659 - 06/06/11 09:52 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> it is unfortunate that 'freaks' who sit 'in their basement, wearing underwear', can write about him on Wikipedia.
His information isn't very accurate. I don't have a basement, and I don't wear any clothes at all when I write about him on Wiki.
> What do you think about these concerns and the similar arguments about/against Wikipedia?
Constitution trumps whiny censorship bitch. There are defamation laws in the US, thus he has a legal recourse should he choose to pursue it. Trying to censor my right to call him an asshat for trying to censor my right to call him an asshat puts him on my asshat list.
Personally I think he should lead by example and censor himself... perhaps he can take up an exciting career as a truck driver... If he stops spouting his own opinions, then I will stop spouting my opinion about him. Seems only fair.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: johnm214]
#14568962 - 06/06/11 11:25 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: What, if anything, should be the approach of Wikipedia and/or the world's governments to these concerns?
They should have no approach to these concerns.
Quote:
Why?
It's none of the government's business, and it's not in wikipedia's interests. What could they do anyway?
Quote:
Throughout his rant, he criticized the notion of anybody being able to write about him in an article, the notion that people would think Wikipedia an authority, and the notion that he has to hire someone to make sure he isn't defamed or that people aren't misled about him. He also said that people aren't aware of the way the media misleads them and that it is unfortunate that 'freaks' who sit 'in their basement, wearing underwear', can write about him on Wikipedia.
I think it's unfortunate that anyone can spout such bullshit on national TV, that people might think Mike Gallagher is an authority, and the notion that I have to hire someone to watch TV to make sure that Mike Gallagher isn't misleading people about how discourse works in a free nation. People aren't aware of the way Mike Gallagher misleads them and it's unfortunate that freaks who sit on TV with double chins can spout such bullshit and get paid for it.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: Seuss]
#14568966 - 06/06/11 11:26 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: If he stops spouting his own opinions, then I will stop spouting my opinion about him. Seems only fair.
^^^
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14579088 - 06/08/11 10:38 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I think that you need to read Wikipedia carefully. There have been so many papers that I've written and attained a wealth of sources through wikipedia, but it's easy when you just follow the superscript to the citation and then look for that source which leads to other great papers when you look who cited it, etc...
There aren't many things I read on wiki that are social in nature or talking about people so I could see that being a problem since there may not be any legitimate citation for something typed about a person. Linking some shit like TMZ isn't exactly credible and what solid sources can you have for a person and how they may act or what they may say that doesn't come from another person (hearsay).
Why worry about it though? That area of Wikipedia seems pretty stupid to me. While it is an unofficial reference for a vast number of subjects, the dynamic nature of what is written about people that may be celebrities/popular is pretty silly. It seems like politics to me. Republicans hate Obama and do whatever they can to discredit him and show how shitty he is and Democrats did the same thing for Bush. If you're a public figure and you actively voice your opinion, and people disagree/it's an area of strong emotion, then expect to get shit on in the public forum. Don't be a baby about it though... chances are not that many people give a shit about you and those that do probably know the truth. 
edit: I had no idea who he was so I just looked really quick to find out. Just knowing that he is a Fox "news" employee is reason enough for me to completely lose faith in his credibility. That's probably wrong of me, but I really don't like companies that disseminate "news" in such a contorted and biased perspective. It's really creepy to me (which is why I read the BBC and only watch The Daily Show/Colbert Report). Hiring a person to "guard" your wiki page seems like a monumental douche-baggery. Does he really expect people to believe he told this employee to just edit out things that have absolutely no truth at all to them? I really doubt it, and I bet he has whatever he wants put up there.
Working for Fox News + hiring a person to keep anything you may not like off of your wiki page = fucked up.
I just can't stop thinking about how little it matters and how he is supporting the behavior(s) that make wiki suck. Why the fuck would he alter his own page?
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
Edited by 5HTSynaptrip (06/08/11 10:47 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: 5HTSynaptrip]
#14579292 - 06/08/11 11:25 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> I really don't like companies that disseminate "news" in such a contorted and biased perspective ... which is why I ... only watch The Daily Show/Colbert Report.
Oh, the irony. Although I find the Daily Show / Colbert Report to fun to watch, they are very biased.
> Why the fuck would he alter his own page?
People that don't like him keep adding things to his page to make him look bad. Because of his ego, he has to remove those things so that he doesn't look bad.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
SpiritualSnorkel
Registered: 06/18/06
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: johnm214]
#14579919 - 06/08/11 01:51 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Generally, Wikipedia isn't a viable source of information on controversial topics, or topics pertaining to anyone with an image to uphold. It's been proven that competing corporations, politicians, etc, spend much time/effort/money monitoring and editing their Wikipedia entries to bolster their image, while negatively altering the articles of their competitors.
Wikipedia is simply a disinformation free-for-all, but on the other hand, it regulates itself well, mainly due to those basement pedants in their underwear.
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: Seuss]
#14580198 - 06/08/11 02:48 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
TDS/CR are easily considered Liberal in nature, but I like how TDS will more often than not just roast anything and everything that is just completely ignorant. The Weiner incident for example... it's hilarious and most of the time I find myself agreeing with what the writers come up with on the show. I don't find myself particularly leaning one way or the other when it comes to politics. There are too many people, too many cultures, and too many social institutions for me to ever think that my belief/opinion on some subject is definitively correct and the way things should be.
Humor seems like a good indicator of agreement and I find myself laughing the majority of the time. I'm sure a lot of people consider them biased, obviously you do, but the fact that they have no problem pointing out ridiculous behavior with satire, sarcasm, or humor no matter who the person is or what they believe is admirable to me (as admirably as most comedians can be).
I was really hoping that Mr. Gallagher wasn't just catering to his ego. My question was more centered around the possibility that he may be an insecure person who finally attained a position in life that satisfied some underlying psychological neglect. A person with a strong ego would normally recognize the people defaming them as inferior and realize that ignoring them would be better than making it known their actions got under their skin, no?
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: SpiritualSnorkel]
#14580564 - 06/08/11 04:02 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SpiritualSnorkel said: Generally, Wikipedia isn't a viable source of information on controversial topics, or topics pertaining to anyone with an image to uphold.
Often it actually is--if you look at the history and discussion pages for the article in question. There you can see other versions of the page, who has made the most edits, which way these edits tend to go, and the debate about the changes that have been made. These things can often reveal a lot more about the topic than other sources especially if one or a few parties are continually falsifying the information on the page.
|
SpiritualSnorkel
Registered: 06/18/06
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14580664 - 06/08/11 04:26 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
SpiritualSnorkel said: Generally, Wikipedia isn't a viable source of information on controversial topics, or topics pertaining to anyone with an image to uphold.
Often it actually is--if you look at the history and discussion pages for the article in question. There you can see other versions of the page, who has made the most edits, which way these edits tend to go, and the debate about the changes that have been made. These things can often reveal a lot more about the topic than other sources especially if one or a few parties are continually falsifying the information on the page.
I made a general statement, and that's getting a bit specific. I do realize that doing this could provide someone with a greater degree of insight on the topic, but the vast majority of people referencing Wikipedia are not checking the history/discussion pages.
I've always sort of marveled at Wikipedia's ability to regulate itself, but the real unsettling fact is that reference materials have always contained consensus opinions and disinformation. Now it just occurs at a faster rate.
I've never heard of this Gallagher guy, but he sounds like an ass, and he sounds like he enjoys playing the victim.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Defamation, Privacy Rights, and Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia's existance harm prominent people? [Re: SpiritualSnorkel]
#14580796 - 06/08/11 04:54 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I just wanted to point that out, because I think more people should be checking out the behind the scenes of Wikipedia. That information is underexploited...
|
|