Comments on: Philip Roth’s Complaint: Wikipedia Is Wrong

By: John Rothstad

John Rothstad — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:31:26 +0000

Hey, Russell. This the high quality journalism ABC is pushing out to the masses? Try looking at the facts. Really. Don’t just take my word for it. Look at the actual facts. The Wikipedia article described the Broyard assertion as an OPINION OF A CRITIC. NOT AS A FACT. Go ahead. Look it up in the actual history of the article. Two clicks away. And no one at Wikipedia implied that “they knew better about the book than the author”. Try looking up the Wikipedia article on sensationalism in the news and send it to the editors who apparently fact checked this story. Literally pained right now that thousands of people read this.

By: alan

alan — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:58:38 +0000

wikipedia are incredibly stupid. I tried submitting stuff twice including correcting and thier interest isnt in supporting
education or new thought or having people bring new ideas, thier simply information “reporters”. by the time something is well known in the public its usualy incorrect. consensus of the majority is the worst scientific bandwagon to be on, newton, einstein would be no where had they gone by the consensus of multiple sources and publics view.

By: Nihiltres

Nihiltres — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:29:41 +0000

@Robert W:

“[Wikipedia] thinks that [only taking second-hand reports] what real encyclopedias do, that they only quote what is in magazines, books and journals.”

No, that’s incorrect. Wikipedia uses secondary sources because that’s the most straightforward way to provide verification that a) readers can check and b) corroborates what a bunch of pseudonymous volunteers write. The fact that it provides extra epistemic value is icing on the cake.

“If Wikipedia wants to reference source documents, it has got to start making copies and archiving them itself, because it will want them for a much longer period of time than the magazines and book publishers.

And if it can archive second hand references, like that magazines reported letter from a reported Roth, it can certainly archive an original reference from someone it has verified as Roth.”

It’s an interesting idea, to be sure, but it’s no reality. Even were it reality, it would still introduce a step where the reader must trust Wikipedia that author Philip Roth contacted them and told them some fact—a step that is valuably needless today.

By: Robert W

Robert W — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:23:53 +0000

“Roth writing a document that makes the true inspiration of his book verifiable—is exactly what needed to happen. If Roth’s correction had been simply taken and baldly published, it would be just another unverified fact on the Internet, no matter how true.”

But Roth did write such a document before he later sent his letter to the magazine.

The problem is Wikipedia has not thought about storing and archiving source documents — it relies on links to stuff other people and organizations store, stuff that will be deleted when its purpose with those organizations is complete, stuff that will one day be gone.

If Wikipedia wants to reference source documents, it has got to start making copies and archiving them itself, because it will want them for a much longer period of time than the magazines and book publishers.

And if it can archive second hand references, like that magazines reported letter from a reported Roth, it can certainly archive an original reference from someone it has verified as Roth.

By: Robert W

Robert W — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:17:44 +0000

Wikipedia won’t believe an the only person who knows for certain, it only takes second hand reports.

It thinks that is what real encyclopedias do, that they only quote what is in magazines, books and journals.

But the fact of the matter is, when it comes to what was in a person’s head at the time, no magazine, book or journal, no guessed imaginings of some reviewer or historian, can compare to the person in whose head the event happened.

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:34:14 +0000

The problem with Wikipedia is their stated policy: they are NOT striving for truth, but *consensus.* Which means that everyone gets to agree on what the truth is. How can anyone not understand just how ridiculous – & even dangerous? – this is? All you need is a “source”. Oh, good – that’ll solve *everything*! Just check any pages having anything to do with politics (for example) to see why Wikipedia is a non-starter for anyone looking for the truth.

By: Nihiltres

Nihiltres — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 02:37:50 +0000

“[…] when he reached out to the online encyclopedia to request a correction, editors there maintained that they knew better about the book than the author.”

This is false. As Roth quoted it, the person said that a source was required, not the silliness this article is suggesting. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. This means that even if a contributor is an expert (as in Roth’s case with respect to his book), Wikipedia still needs sources so that readers can check for themselves.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the outcome that transpired—Roth writing a document that makes the true inspiration of his book verifiable—is exactly what needed to happen. If Roth’s correction had been simply taken and baldly published, it would be just another unverified fact on the Internet, no matter how true.