Nature testet Wikipedia

Das Online-Lexikon Wikipedia ist nach einer Untersuchung des britischen Fachjournals „Nature“ kaum schlechter als die Encyclopaedia Britannica. Die Zeitschrift hatte 42 Artikel der beiden Werke durch Experten vergleichen lassen, ohne daß diese wußten, aus welcher Enzyklopädie der Artikel stammt.

Bei Wikipedia gibt es im Gegensatz zur Encyclopaedia Britannica keine Redaktion. Jeder darf neue Artikel veröffentlichen und bestehende verändern. Bei Wikipedia fanden die Experten durchschnittlich vier Fehler pro Artikel, bei der Encyclopaedia Britannica waren es drei. Insgesamt entdeckten die Prüfer 162 Fehler bei dem Internetprojekt und 123 bei der Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nicht weniger als 19 Fehler fanden die Experten beispielsweise in einem Wikipedia-Artikel über den russischen Chemiker Dimitri Mendelejew. Die Enzyclopaedia Britannica erlaubte sich 8 Fehler. 10 Fehler entdeckten die Prüfer in einem Britannica-Text über den britischen Physiker Paul Dirac. Bei Wikipedia waren es 9.

Wikipedia erscheint in mehr als 100 Sprachen. Die englische Version ist mit derzeit mehr als 850.000 Artikeln die größte, gefolgt von der deutschen Ausgabe mit rund 324.000 Beiträgen. Die Online-Enzyklopädie war in den vergangenen Wochen wegen eines fehlerhaften Artikels über den amerikanischen Journalisten John Seigenthaler in die Kritik geraten. Die Artikel bei Wikipedia können mehr oder weniger anonym verfaßt und verändert werden, während sich bei der Enzyclopaedia Britannica eine Redaktion für die Texte verantwortlich zeigt.

Aus der FAZ:

aber auch : A false Wikipedia ‚biography‘

By John Seigenthaler
„John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960’s. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.“

– Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.

I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious „biography“ that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more:

„John Seigenthaler moved to the Soviet Union in 1971, and returned to the United States in 1984,“ Wikipedia said. „He started one of the country’s largest public relations firms shortly thereafter.“

At age 78, I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at anything negative said about me. I was wrong. One sentence in the biography was true. I was Robert Kennedy’s administrative assistant in the early 1960s. I also was his pallbearer. It was mind-boggling when my son, John Seigenthaler, journalist with NBC News, phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on and

I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about „the wonderful world of Wikipedia,“ where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference „facts,“ composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge – and sometimes by people with malice.

At my request, executives of the three websites now have removed the false content about me. But they don’t know, and can’t find out, who wrote the toxic sentences.

Anonymous author

I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder and asked, „Do you … have any way to know who wrote that?“

„No, we don’t,“ he said. Representatives of the other two websites said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual.

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.

But searching cyberspace for the identity of people who post spurious information can be frustrating. I found on Wikipedia the registered IP (Internet Protocol) number of my „biographer“- 65-81-97-208. I traced it to a customer of BellSouth Internet. That company advertises a phone number to report „Abuse Issues.“ An electronic voice said all complaints must be e-mailed. My two e-mails were answered by identical form letters, advising me that the company would conduct an investigation but might not tell me the results. It was signed „Abuse Team.“

Wales, Wikipedia’s founder, told me that BellSouth would not be helpful. „We have trouble with people posting abusive things over and over and over,“ he said. „We block their IP numbers, and they sneak in another way. So we contact the service providers, and they are not very responsive.“

After three weeks, hearing nothing further about the Abuse Team investigation, I phoned BellSouth’s Atlanta corporate headquarters, which led to conversations between my lawyer and BellSouth’s counsel. My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a „John or Jane Doe“ lawsuit against my „biographer.“ Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name.

Little legal recourse

Federal law also protects online corporations – BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. – from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that „no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker.“ That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others.

Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace. Wikipedia’s website acknowledges that it is not responsible for inaccurate information, but Wales, in a recent C-Span interview with Brian Lamb, insisted that his website is accountable and that his community of thousands of volunteer editors (he said he has only one paid employee) corrects mistakes within minutes.

My experience refutes that. My „biography“ was posted May 26. On May 29, one of Wales‘ volunteers „edited“ it only by correcting the misspelling of the word „early.“ For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin before Wales erased it from his website’s history Oct. 5. The falsehoods remained on and for three more weeks.

In the C-Span interview, Wales said Wikipedia has „millions“ of daily global visitors and is one of the world’s busiest websites. His volunteer community runs the Wikipedia operation, he said. He funds his website through a non-profit foundation and estimated a 2006 budget of „about a million dollars.“

And so 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.

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of „gossip.“ She held a feather pillow and said, „If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That’s how it is when you spread mean things about people.“

For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia.

John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, founded The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. He also is a former editorial page editor at USA TODAY.



Kommentar verfassen

Bitte logge dich mit einer dieser Methoden ein, um deinen Kommentar zu veröffentlichen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s