Wikipedia Seigenthaler controversy

Katharine Seelye’s article in the New York Times this past Monday titled “Wikipedia: Open-source, and open to abuse,” portrays a typical media view of web 2.0 technologies like Wikipedia: They are lamentable and problematic.

Seelye fails to note that instead of trying to track down and “get” the person who posted information allegedly inaccurate about John Seigenthaler, John or someone else could have simply logged into WikiPedia and edited the entry.

Now apparently because the high profile attention received from an article in USA Today authored by Seigenthaler, this article in the NYT, and other coverage in the mainstream press, the WikiPedia entry for John Seigenthaler has had to be locked. The page for John Seigenthaler Sr. is available, however. Apparently one of the points of contention on this entry involves allegations about involvement in the Kennedy assassination. This paragraph appears in the above WikiPedia entry today:

In May 2005, an anonymous user created a Wikipedia article for Seigenthaler which contained a number of inaccurate statements as well as an allegation that Seigenthaler might have been involved in the assassinations of Robert and John Kennedy. This version of the article remained largely undisturbed until September, when Victor Johnson, an old friend of Seigenthaler, brought it to his attention. Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia, and the content was immediately deleted.

Rather than simply complain about WikiPedia and lament the editability of web 2.0 technology resources, I think we should recognize what a different conversation people are having about these issues thanks to WikiPedia. In his USA today opinion piece, Seigenthaler wrote:

Naturally, I want to unmask my “biographer.” And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool… 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. Congress has enabled them and protects them.

It is a good thing that people are questioning the veracity of information they find online and elsewhere, and seeking to figure out “the truth.” This is a big part of what 21st century digital literacy is all about. Seigenthaler may be shocked by the fact that people need to do this more than ever in the age of WikiPedia, but actually, it is something people should have been doing with the information they read and come into contact with all along.

If you want to read more about what others think of this situation and are saying in the blogosphere, I recommending using a Technorati search for the word “Seigenthaler.”