A little sleuthing unmasks writer of Wikipedia prank

Joke ends up as a shot heard 'round Internet, with joker losing his job and Wikipedia suffering a credibility blow.
The New York Times

The story "A little sleuthing unmasks writer of Wikipedia prank" published December 11, 2005 at 10:35 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[anarchyreigns]

Daniel Brandt=Loser

What kind of a loser obsesses all day over Wikipedia, then tracks down a guy who was obviously just joking?

Here's an idea Brandt:
Go get a life, you're pathetic

I've seen some real low life mental cases online in my time, but this wack job takes the cake.

[scandrea]

What?

Don't tell me you've never googled yourself.

[Hernys]

Maybe

Maybe you don't have a reputation to defend, or perhaps nobody cares about you and you know it. But there's people that care about their reputation, and there's people that base their opinion on others (and make important decisions concerning other people)based on what they find on the Internet. Yes, that's not very reasonable, and they shouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that what it says out there can affect your life in an important way. Maybe if someone published an article telling about your affairs you'd say "it's nonsense, it's all lies" and not care about it. But there's a slight chance your girlfriend or wife wouldn't like it, and that's why it is not OK to write lies about other people and publish them. When did truth cease to be an important concept?

[Earl Benser]

iIt was hardly obvious....

... you need to get your brain retuned. Your perception are terribly
off center. And the cake is all yours.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Talk about pathetic

What made it obvious that the entry was a joke? Until the perp came out there was no way to tell that the entry in question wasn't a deliberate smear job (in fact, the perp's motives were indeed meant to smear a family in a miguided attempt to lower them a notch).

How pathetic is it to jump on the guy who nearly found the perp simply because he didn't recognize the perp's motives before he found him?

[ejevo]

Exhibit A

Here's the perfect example of why utopian ideals of online communities working in harmony, with only intelligent efforts put forth, (like Wikipedia) will never come true. You'd have to figure out how to put in a 'miscreant filter' to keep out the Joe Schmoes of the world, and that isn't going to happen.

[katamari]

Texans.

...

[coffee4binky]

Just how I see it.

Mr. Brandt is offended by Wikipedia's article towards him. He has
that Right to be, as does Wikipedia has a Right to publish an
article about him. However, the legal issues of slander has been
addresses by the linked Brandt website. Wikipedia presents itself
in the public forum, similar to a shopping mall, casino, or
governmental building, though just in Cyberspace. If the articles
at hand actually causes harm from the slander, then Wikipedia is
accountable for that in a Court of Law. However, if Wikipedia
presents that their articles are not factual, and slander occurs, it
means nothing, in any Court. The issue gets messy there, so I
don't care to go on further about it specifically.

However, if Mr. Brandt is worried about privacy, there're bigger
fish to fry and other ways to do it. Lobbying the government or
courts is one way, attaching metatags and other forms of
attracting search engine hits will place him before Wikipedia's
articles about him if done correctly, and perhaps Mr. Brandt has
a personal beef with Wikipedia . . .

As for Mr. Seigenthaler and Mr. Chase . . . Mr. Seigenthaler
specifically, the issue of emerging technologies and regulation
of those technologies must now be addressed for his
satisfaction. Is Wikipedia regarded by the World as the definitive
source for information? Not in the World surrounding me, which
usually looks up pop cultural references such as information
about That '70s Show or Neo-Geo AES game console, not
serious issues where other, better websites exist, or text books
in the local library. Mr. Seigenthaler's worry is useless, but his
point is valid. I suggest he shouldn't lose sleep over the issue,
and give it time as Wikipedia is still a baby on the Internet.

The plus about Wikipedia is that users can correct articles.
Maybe Mr. Brandt is hated by that company. That's his bad. He
doesn't need to make it mine, nor does Mr. Seigenthaler.

Poor Mr. Chase was just doing what numbskulls do on the
Internet, and I don't hold him for anything more than having fun.

[laurels]

Mr Brandt has done everyone (except Wikipedia) a favor

Actually I think Mr. Brandt has established exactly the point he meant to establish, which is that Wikipedia is exactly the sort of place where people can go and plant trash about other people, and - contrary to Wikipedia's claims - Wikipedia does NOT "self correct".

Mr. Brandt has actually proven more than any of us expected: he has proven that not only is it a place where anyone can say anything, but it is also a place where someone could go there and plant material THINKING IT IS A JOKE.

It is entirely reasonable and plausible to think a user who is not familiar with Wikipedia could take Wikipedia as a joke. Wikipedia's only real response seems to be "well you should have known better than to believe anything you read here anyway."

What more compelling case against Wikipedia could be made?

Hopefully soon the whole world will realize that Wikipedia information is not "fact". It is merely "group blog", and not one that is capable of "self-correction".

[ewelch]

Your questions answers her question.

You didn't get her point, any more than you got why Mr. Brandt
didn't like being portrayed inaccurately by Wikipedia. And he saw
the damage done to another person's life (they were extremely
offensive charges that Chase made against him) and decided to
help when Wikipedia and ISPs refused to.

You have a problem with someone helping another person in pain.
That says a lot about you.

[anarchyreigns]

You're naive....

"You have a problem with someone helping another person in pain.
That says a lot about you."

...and you're naive if you think that's why he did it.

[coffee4binky]

Good point, also.

I suppose a little help and optimism goes a long way.

I encourage Wikipedia and future conflicts to settle with a
handshake or something (so to speak) than a urine-shooting
contest.

[Thunder Johny]

offensive charges

http://www.analogstereo.com/fiat_bravo_owners_manual.htm

[//ROOT]

Um, I have a suggestion

I'm sure someone has said this before, but ...

If this guy found bad information in Wikipedia, WHY DIDN'T HE JUST CHANGE IT HIMSELF?

[Earl Benser]

Simple answer....

.... He had no experience with Wikipedia, and didn't know that he
could. Besides, it's not just the wrong info published in Wikipedia
that's the problem - it's all the other places which may have copied
the information under the illusion that Wikipedia is correct.

[devans00]

Amen

I've been wondering the same thing since this article came up. Why all the drama?

Why not just "fix" the messed up information and maybe make a note to the volunteer administrators about the issue so they can keep an eye on things.

Answer

"WHY DIDN'T HE JUST CHANGE IT HIMSELF?"

Because, ethically speaking, he should not be put in the position of having to correct every slander made against him.

..and so he did...

That is what he did eventually do. Why he didn't do it right off is I'm sure a matter of experience.
As for seeing the link on the interface to edit the page: how many users a day fail to understand the direction to "Click on the File Menu.." in a Windows application?

I continue to expect and hope that the whole thing is an evolutionary blip in the history of Wikipedia.
Overreaction not withstanding. It is what it is, and a lot of people are hearing of it for the first time in terms of what it isn't.

[Zerocxis]

Why do people do this?

Are they really that dumb to believe that Wikipedia is a gag site (poor excuse if you ask me). I really don't know what to really say to this except, look before you leap.

[firstthingsfirst]

AMY

HEY PAT, WHAT UP? I STILL HAVE YOUR PICTURES. I CANNOT BELIEVE I FOUND YOU, I AM MOVING HOME TO SURF AGAIN, UNTIL I GO BACK TO HAWAII, BUT I ALSO WANT TO GO TO OZ. DUDE, CALL ME 916-879-7806

[firstthingsfirst]

WHAT HAPPENED TO AMY?

ONE OF THE FIRST GIRL SURFERS, HARDCORE IN CA, USED TO LIVE IN SANTA BARBARA, AND WORKED FOR AL MERRIK, MOVED TO SAN DIEGO, AND IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THE REST, YOU DON'T KNOW ME. WHEN I SURFED OXNARD SHORES, I WAS NOT WELCOME, AND I WAS ALMOST BEAT UP BECAUSE I WAS A GIRL BUT MOST OF ALL I HAD A YELLOW WETSUIT ON, NOT COOL BACK IN THE DAY. FROM THEN ON I AM JUST A LEGEND OF THE PAST, BUT ONE DAY AT D-STREET IN NORTH COUNTY, SOMEONE SAID, OH MY GOD YOU WERE RIPPINT OUT THERE, YOU TOOK OVER THE PEAK. i HAD TO MOVE UP NORTH CAUSE OF MY DAUGHTER, NOW SHE IS A DRUG ADDICT AND IN THE SYSTEM. I love her so much, cannot say much more on that. I HAVE BEEN SNOWBOARDING AND STUFF, BUT IT IS JUST NOT THE SAME, BOUGHT A BOARD IN SANTA CRUZ, A TAYLOR 6'5'' , BUT I AM COMING HOME, IF ANYONE REMEMBERS ME, THERE ARE SO MANY GIRL SURFERS OUTTHERE, NOW, BUT I AM FROM THE DAY OF JODIE COOPER RIPPING UP SUNSET, AND PIPE. YA I USED TO LIVE IN HAWAII TOO, IT'S AMY NEET TRIER, IF ANYONE REMEMBERS....

[Thunder Johny]

poor excuse

http://www.analogstereo.com/infiniti_m45_owners_manual.htm

[ccisat1dxj]

Self Governing Collaboration

The INTERNET is ALL about self governing communities. COME ON FOLKS. The prank was caught wasnt it?

[Brinf]

All of you are missing the point

I'm surprised none of you has mentioned the most relevant aspect of this story, namely that Wikipedia is not, regardless of what its creators say, a serious reference tool - it's a semi-grand social experiment. That's it. Anyone who reads something on Wikipedia and fails to fact-check it with a reliable source is, more than likely, also someone who reads something on a discussion board somewhere and treats it as fact. I repeat, Wikipedia is an idea, not a reference tool. It's an interesting concept and undoubtedly much of the information is accurate, but I have zero sympathy for anyone who depends on it as a source of accurate information.

Problem is

Problem is that Wikipedia says it's an encyclopedia and not a "collection of people's opinions" wich tends to mislead the masses to thinking it's a reliable source of information. Only now perhaps (with this example) people will start to realise the truth about their system. Perhaps they should do like orange juice. You can only call it orange juice if it is made with real oranges and that's the law to protect consumers. I believe the same should be done here with Wikipedia.

[Thunder Johny]

reference tool

http://www.analogstereo.com/mitsubishi_galant_owners_manual.htm

[SystemsJunky]

Okay, How many here

knew his name before the Wiki Article? None? Okay, Who cares then?

[firstthingsfirst]

YOU KNOW

THAT IS SUCH A GAY COMMENT