The online credibility gap - False claim on JFK murder shows vulnerability of Wikipedia

What if an online encyclopedia read by millions said you shot JFK? Wikipedia, an Internet encyclopedia written entirely by volunteers, claimed that a prominent journalist might have been involved in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, a false charge that has highlighted the Achilles' heel of such do-it-yourself Web sites.... Full Story »

Posted by David Fox2
Tags Help
Subjects: Business, Sci/Tech, Media
Member Tags: Wikipedia, John Seigenthaler Sr., JFK, wiki
Stats Help
Number sourcesHelp: 3
Anonymous sourcesHelp: 1
Number viewpointsHelp: 3
Opinions as factsHelp: 0
Number stakeholdersHelp: 4
Stakeholders quotedHelp: 4
Derogatory wordsHelp: 0
Complimentary wordsHelp: 1
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by David Fox2 - Dec 7, 2005 - 5:46 PM PST
Reviewed by: Fabrice Florin (review), Fabrice Florin2 (review), David Fox2 (review), David Fox (review), Howard Rheingold (review), David Fox3 (review)
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: David Fox - May 22, 2006 - 9:20 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
David Fox
3.1
by David Fox - Oct. 1, 2008

Good story! Wikis will get better as people figure out how to handle issues like this, and the story does a good job balancing pros and cons. I always wondered how you could control someone sneaking in some urban legend lore, or just plain misinformation on topics that most people know nothing about. Seems like a hole in the system to me, and I think this story illustrates this.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Howard Rheingold
4.9
by Howard Rheingold - Oct. 1, 2008

Balanced, with quotes from authentic experts on all sides of the debate; shows the big picture in regard to regulation, history, technology. Accurately describes wikipedia phenomenon and process

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.9

Good
from 3 reviews (30% confidence)
Quality
4.0
Facts
2.3
Fairness
3.5
Information
3.0
Sourcing
3.2
Style
3.0
Accuracy
3.7
Balance
2.0
Context
3.3
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
3.2
Credibility
2.8
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!