|
A false Wikipedia 'biography' sparks reflection
By John Seigenthaler (USAtoday)
Updated: 2005-12-01 08:45
"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 Reference.com
and Answers.com.
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
Answers.com and Reference.com 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.
|
