Wikipedia’s other side

Within an hour of posting yesterday’s column about Wikipedia’s characterization of me as “a noted homosexual,” I received an e-mail from an editor and administrator at the site.

He told me he had removed the defamation and placed a block on my entry so that only established users could make changes for the next month.

While noting that he is not able to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, he offered me his most sincere apologies for what the site has put me through over the years.

I wanted you to know about this other side of Wikipedia.

While I still hold my convictions that it cannot be counted on for reliability and that the whole concept is deeply flawed and dangerous, there are obviously some good and well-meaning people working there.

I’m very grateful to this brave and righteous soul at Wikipedia and want to protect him by not naming here. Notice, though, how I had to accomplish my objective of removing a prima facie case of libel on the site: I had to repeat it in another large Internet venue – WND.

Now I have a friend inside who assures me he will protect me from future acts of character assassination. But what about all those who don’t?

I remember what I went through years ago when Wikipedia accused me of having an affair with a prominent female syndicated columnist. I spent many hours and many days trying to get Wikipedia to correct the defamatory attack against not just me, but another innocent colleague.

Every time a change was made, some malefactor at Wikipedia put the offensive line right back up again.

It was only a threat of filing a libel action that seemed to prompt the desired result.

Not everyone will go to such lengths to protect their reputation. Not everyone has the clout of a large Internet news forum they can use to address injustices. Not everyone has the resources to take on an Internet giant like Wikipedia.

What about them?

Where is their advocate?

Where is their ombudsman?

Where does someone go on Wikipedia for justice?

Whom does the average person appeal to when he or she has been slimed?

Where’s the corrections department?

Where do you go to get your reputation back?

Where is the reparations department?

There’s another dark side of Wikipedia I discovered when I tried to correct my own bio – and was told I didn’t have the authority or credentials to do so. I found that nothing on Wikipedia ever really goes away. All the defamations and lies are still there – buried in layers of electrons that can be reconstructed and viewed by anyone familiar with the site.

For that matter, nothing on the Internet every really goes away. It’s all saved and cached elsewhere – if nowhere other than the so-called WayBackMachine.

People save things they view on Wikipedia. They make copies. They take screenshots. Imagine the damage those things could inflict on someone’s reputation if Wikipedia is taken seriously as a source of information.

I don’t want to be a victim of this beast any more.

I don’t want others to be victims of it – whether I like them or not.

Wikipedia is so pervasive as an institution that it literally threatens the whole concept of accountability under the law. Who can be held responsible? Wikipedia itself explains that it is aware of institutional falsehoods being perpetrated. It relies on those being corrected over time.

And what about the millions of people out there – students, teachers, reporters, commentators and others – who use Wikipedia as if it were a bona fide, legitimate, credible source of information, rather than the playground of rhetorical vandals?

There is only one answer: If you want truth, go to sources that are legally, ethically and morally accountable to deliver it.

---