ACCORDING to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, John
Seigenthaler Sr. is 78 years old and the former editor of The
Tennessean in Nashville. But is that information, or anything else in
Mr. Seigenthaler's biography, true?
The question arises
because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and
was shocked to learn that he "was thought to have been directly
involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother
"Nothing was ever proven," the biography added.
Mr. Seigenthaler discovered that the false information had been on the
site for several months and that an unknown number of people had read
it, and possibly posted it on or linked it to other sites.
any assassination was going on, Mr. Seigenthaler (who is 78 and did
edit The Tennessean) wrote last week in an op-ed article in USA Today,
it was of his character.
The case triggered extensive debate on
the Internet over the value and reliability of Wikipedia, and more
broadly, over the nature of online information.
Wikipedia is a
kind of collective brain, a repository of knowledge, maintained on
servers in various countries and built by anyone in the world with a
computer and an Internet connection who wants to share knowledge about
a subject. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have written
Mistakes are expected to be caught and corrected by later contributors and users.
whole nonprofit enterprise began in January 2001, the brainchild of
Jimmy Wales, 39, a former futures and options trader who lives in St.
Petersburg, Fla. He said he had hoped to advance the promise of the
Internet as a place for sharing information.
It has, by most
measures, been a spectacular success. Wikipedia is now the biggest
encyclopedia in the history of the world. As of Friday, it was
receiving 2.5 billion page views a month, and offering at least 1,000
articles in 82 languages. The number of articles, already close to two
million, is growing by 7 percent a month. And Mr. Wales said that
traffic doubles every four months.
Still, the question of Wikipedia, as of so much of what you find online, is: Can you trust it?
beyond reliability, there is the question of accountability. Mr.
Seigenthaler, after discovering that he had been defamed, found that
his "biographer" was anonymous. He learned that the writer was a
customer of BellSouth Internet, but that federal privacy laws shield
the identity of Internet customers, even if they disseminate defamatory
material. And the laws protect online corporations from libel suits.
He could have filed a lawsuit against BellSouth, he wrote, but only a subpoena would compel BellSouth to reveal the name.
the end, Mr. Seigenthaler decided against going to court, instead
alerting the public, through his article, "that Wikipedia is a flawed
and irresponsible research tool."
Mr. Wales said in an interview
that he was troubled by the Seigenthaler episode, and noted that
Wikipedia was essentially in the same boat. "We have constant problems
where we have people who are trying to repeatedly abuse our sites," he
Still, he said, he was trying to make Wikipedia less
vulnerable to tampering. He said he was starting a review mechanism by
which readers and experts could rate the value of various articles. The
reviews, which he said he expected to start in January, would show the
site's strengths and weaknesses and perhaps reveal patterns to help
them address the problems.
In addition, he said, Wikipedia may
start blocking unregistered users from creating new pages, though they
would still be able to edit them.
The real problem, he said, was
the volume of new material coming in; it is so overwhelming that
screeners cannot keep up with it.
All of this struck close to
home for librarians and researchers. On an electronic mailing list for
them, J. Stephen Bolhafner, a news researcher at The St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, wrote, "The best defense of the Wikipedia, frankly, is
to point out how much bad information is available from supposedly
(Page 2 of 2)
Baumgart, a news researcher at Harvard University, wrote that there
were librarians voluntarily working behind the scenes to check
information on Wikipedia. "But, honestly," she added, "in some ways,
we're just as fallible as everyone else in some areas because our own
knowledge is limited and we can't possibly fact-check everything."
In an interview, she said that her rule of thumb was to double-check everything and to consider Wikipedia as only one source.
of figuring out how to 'fix' Wikipedia - something that cannot be done
to our satisfaction," wrote Derek Willis, a research database manager
at The Washington Post, who was speaking for himself and not The Post,
"we should focus our energies on educating the Wikipedia users among
Some cyberexperts said Wikipedia already had a
good system of checks and balances. Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at
Stanford and an expert in the laws of cyberspace, said that contrary to
popular belief, true defamation was easily pursued through the courts
because almost everything on the Internet was traceable and subpoenas
were not that hard to obtain. (For real anonymity, he advised, use a
"People will be defamed," he said. "But that's the
way free speech is. Think about the gossip world. It spreads. There's
no way to correct it, period. Wikipedia is not immune from that kind of
maliciousness, but it is, relative to other features of life, more
Indeed, Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0
and a longtime Internet analyst, said Wikipedia may, in that sense, be
better than real life.
"The Internet has done a lot more for
truth by making things easier to discuss," she said. "Transparency and
sunlight are better than a single point of view that can't be
For Mr. Seigenthaler, whose biography on Wikipedia
has since been corrected, the lesson is simple: "We live in a universe
of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications
and research, but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen