Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Seigenthaler gave a speech yesterday
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Daniel Brandt
Seigenthaler gave a speech yesterday at Florida State University in Tallahassee. I emailed him and asked him how it went. Here is his reply:
QUOTE
The Florida State speech went well — exceptionally well. I opened with a few comments on Don Imus, to give it currency.

The title drew a good audience with many of them students (a couple of professors directed students to come and write grade-enhancement papers on what I said.)

I would estimate that about 90 percent of the students raised their hands when I asked, early on, how many had used Wikipedia as a research tool.

At about half way into the lecture I presented slides from the history pages of the Wikipedia biographies of David Adkins (Sinbad), Fuzzy Zoeller and Ann Coulter — and left until last my own collection of vandalism.

I had telephoned ahead and asked the Dean for advice on whether to include some of the more salacious stuff — examples that gave off a sewer-like odor. He urged me to do it. I did. I selected about 30 examples from the more than 100 printouts I have saved over these last 19 months.

I announced in advance that some of the excerpts might offend some of them and suggested that if they felt that they might object to sexual vulgarisms, that they look away or close their close their eyes. None did.

I did not comment more than a couple of sentences as the excerpts appeared on the screen. There was not a sound for several minutes as the direct quotations from the history pages scrolled.

Rumsfeld could have found the shock and awe that never developed in Iraq had he been in that audience and witnessed that crowd reaction. When I explained that it was speech protected by section 230 of the the CDA and that these defamers were hiding behind veils of anonymity and virtually untraceable IP numbers there was astonishment. You could hear it in the questions that followed my remarks.

I am satisfied with the result and now want to find a venue where I can have a larger impact with it.

Cedric
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 13th April 2007, 8:58pm) *

Seigenthaler gave a speech yesterday at Florida State University in Tallahassee. I emailed him and asked him how it went. Here is his reply:
QUOTE
The Florida State speech went well — exceptionally well. I opened with a few comments on Don Imus, to give it currency.
. . .
I am satisfied with the result and now want to find a venue where I can have a larger impact with it.


Thanks for sharing that Daniel. smile.gif If there is a way to find a venue where he can have a larger impact, I'm sure Seigenthaler will find it. Surely he has friends here. biggrin.gif
thekohser
QUOTE
Rumsfeld could have found the shock and awe that never developed in Iraq had he been in that audience and witnessed that crowd reaction. When I explained that it was speech protected by section 230 of the the CDA and that these defamers were hiding behind veils of anonymity and virtually untraceable IP numbers there was astonishment. You could hear it in the questions that followed my remarks.

I am satisfied with the result and now want to find a venue where I can have a larger impact with it.


We are blessed to have such an eloquent and provocative agent for pointing out the flaws (dangers?) of Section 230, especially vis-a-vis Wikipedia. I hope that Seigenthaler can continue with this lecture tour, much like Al Gore did with "An Inconvenient Truth". The more 18-22 year olds who see this, the more likely we'll see a legal challenge to Section 230 someday, after they've emerged from law schools and begin to take cases from a perspective that's been enhanced by Seigenthaler. In fact, his next stop should be the Harvard Law School course on cyberlaw that I myself spoke to. You know what, I'll forward this to Professor Zittrain now.

Greg
michael
My comment is a big "Duh." This is inherent with Wikipedia and with IP address editing in general: people are going to be idiots. Dumb people think that their vandalism is so cool and all that. It is quickly identifable and removed with a couple of clicks. Barring banning anonymous editing, the best Wikipedia editors can do is try to revert it as quickly as possible. Of course that is not good enough, based on the super media hype over Sinbad (two hours!!).
thekohser
QUOTE(michael @ Sun 15th April 2007, 12:25am) *

My comment is a big "Duh." ... It is quickly identifable and removed with a couple of clicks. ... the super media hype over Sinbad (two hours!!).

Michael, please inform us -- how long did it take for the "Wikipedia community" to remove the outrageous lies from Seigenthaler's article? How quickly was that executed?
michael
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 14th April 2007, 10:29pm) *

Michael, please inform us -- how long did it take for the "Wikipedia community" to remove the outrageous lies from Seigenthaler's article? How quickly was that executed?


Hmm. I thought I had written "it usually is reverted," but that was a disconnect between what I thought I said and what I did. We both know it took five months. I wasn't implying that Wikipedia catches everything. I was just particularly incensed at the Sinbad blowup because it was there for a fairly short time as opposed to other big incidents.
gomi
QUOTE(michael @ Sat 14th April 2007, 9:25pm) *
My comment is a big "Duh." This is inherent with Wikipedia and with IP address editing in general: people are going to be idiots. Dumb people think that their vandalism is so cool and all that. It is quickly identifable and removed with a couple of clicks. Barring banning anonymous editing, the best Wikipedia editors can do is try to revert it as quickly as possible. Of course that is not good enough, based on the super media hype over Sinbad (two hours!!).
Alternatively, one could conclude that trying to produce an encyclopedia this way, much less capture "the sum of human knowledge" is idiocy.

JohnA
QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 15th April 2007, 6:47am) *

QUOTE(michael @ Sat 14th April 2007, 9:25pm) *
My comment is a big "Duh." This is inherent with Wikipedia and with IP address editing in general: people are going to be idiots. Dumb people think that their vandalism is so cool and all that. It is quickly identifable and removed with a couple of clicks. Barring banning anonymous editing, the best Wikipedia editors can do is try to revert it as quickly as possible. Of course that is not good enough, based on the super media hype over Sinbad (two hours!!).
Alternatively, one could conclude that trying to produce an encyclopedia this way, much less capture "the sum of human knowledge" is idiocy.


I'm coming to this conclusion myself. I find myself less and less enamoured with the collaborative publishing model every day
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.