Who's been editing Wikipedia?
I've just been checking some local Wikipedia edits, following the fuss in the US. Here is a list of organisations with the words "New Zealand" in their titles. To check their edits, just click the tickbox and press the button below the list. It makes for interesting browsing.
For instance, here's the edits from Air New Zealand's IP address, and at least one appears to make significant changes to an entry covering Flight 901, the lost Erebus flight. Here's another.
For instance, here's the edits from Air New Zealand's IP address, and at least one appears to make significant changes to an entry covering Flight 901, the lost Erebus flight. Here's another.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 3:54 PM
5 Comments:
It's funny how a story makes its way around the world.
On Thursday I noticed the Wikipedia issue on Little Green Footballs.
Early Friday, something was posted over at No Minister, your mate Adolf's new blog.
Saturday sees the story you link to, from the New York Times.
Today, sees Whale Oil with his own observations.
And now you guys as well.
It's an interesting situation and it makes one wonder, can Wikipedia be truly trusted?
DarrenG
Wikipedia is not a person, Darren, so you're asing the wrong question. It can neither be trusted any more or less than another single source of information. There are plenty of documented examples that suggest the information in Wikipedia entries about topics currently or recently in the news is more up-to-date than in most areas of the print media. But if you're using it to find out information about a company or a person, it stands to reason that a Wikipedia entry has to be used with caution. For example, the more popular the topic, the more likely it is to have been vandalised. I know of companies that are paying to have Wikipedia entries written or edited for them, potentially blurring the line between fact and PR but only if they include more/less than the facts. It's an opinion, but most are probably only seeking an accurate representation of their company. However, there are bound to be those manipulating the facts for the usual reasons.
Almost as disturbing as the stories about companies manipulating their own entries, though, are the policies of some Wikipedia editors, and the definite bias that exists against non-US companies, technologies and even events. Russ B and Juha had a run-in with some Wiki editors over this some time ago, but I can't find the link just now.
The Press picked on the story today:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4171940a10.html
But seems to have missed the point that this was one person at Air NZ with a bee in his bonnet four years ago (this fairly obvious if you read the talk pages), and that in some ways the revised text was actually better written. It was interesting, and a good scoop for Rob, but it's not Air NZ's PR department.
Mine and Juha's run-in was actually with local editors, and it puzzled the hell out of both of us (still does, even though I've since spoken to a couple of those involved). If someone had simply advised us that our Kiwi Foo Camp article should really be incorporated in the main Foo Camp article, I think we'd just have done it, but the aggressive attitude and repeated attempts to delete it took us by surprise. At one point, the guy seemed to be on the verge of deleting the main Foo Camp article as "spam", which seemed weirdly destructive.
It made the DomPost as well. I thought, neat, nzbc has a scoop!
While it is very useful to me to find out that those changes were made 4 years ago, rather than currently, I would have to dispute your view (Russell Brown)that it was "better written". I'm not sure how something that's inaccurate can be better.
The findings of the Royal Commission and opinion of the majority of the Aviation Industry are that it was not pilot error but due to the coordinates being changed without informing the pilots (plus all the other systemic problems I won't go into here). It is important this go down in history correctly because the cry of "pilot error" allows airlines and the aviation industry to go on from an accident without making changes. In fact, Gordon Vette went on to lecture around the world on systemic error (where a series of events leads to disaster and any one could have changed it) and the aviation industry has adapted to become safer for you and me because of it.
Just because there are, or were, a few die hards who didn't want to be part of the blame that was attributed to them/their airline, it shouldn't be claimed that "pilots are divided to this day..where responsibility should rest".
And yes, I am biased. The only thing is that I have a Royal Commision's findings on my side.
Jacinta Cassin
Daughter of Co-pilot
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home