wikkimurder

December 17, 2005 5:15 PM

News filter: Wikipedia founder 'shot by friend of Siegenthaler' Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has been shot dead, according to Wikipedia, the online, up-to-the-minute encyclopedia. Apparently, the assassin was a "friend" of the victim of a recent controversy
posted by hortense (49 comments total)

This event exists only in a wikipedia edit, not real life. The gulf between the two being, I guess, the point.
posted by TonyRobots at 5:19 PM on December 17, 2005

"This is why we can't have nice things."
posted by clevershark at 5:20 PM on December 17, 2005

No, it was mentioned at LGF.com. So it's definitely true. That's awful.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:21 PM on December 17, 2005

Here.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:23 PM on December 17, 2005

i'm terribly confused.

the end of the register article states: "For the record, The Register must note that the ubermeister of Wikipedia appears to be alive and well.
The "news" of his death consisted of a random edit to his own, particularly fulsome entry on the encyclopedia he helped create."
posted by PercussivePaul at 5:23 PM on December 17, 2005

"A cursory search today suggested that these procedures - which require contributors to register basic details before posting articles - were being defeated by a relentless wave of vandals, apparently co-ordinating their assaults from a series of chatrooms dedicated to its demise."

I'm curious if someone could explain to me what the motivation of a wikipedia vandal would be.
posted by dobie at 5:24 PM on December 17, 2005

Er... vandalism?
posted by A189Nut at 5:26 PM on December 17, 2005

OK, I'm confused too.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:26 PM on December 17, 2005

it was mentioned at LGF.com. So it's definitely true.

Talk about a non sequitur!!
posted by rkent at 5:27 PM on December 17, 2005

This event exists only in a wikipedia edit, not real life. The gulf between the two being, I guess, the point.

Indeed, although the fact that I briefly believed this to be true after reading the post goes some way to militating against suc h a simple dualism. We believe what we read. That's in large part why George Bush was re-elected, for example.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:28 PM on December 17, 2005

Perhaps it's an attempt by some scummy lawyer to bolster his extortion attempt?
posted by clevershark at 5:28 PM on December 17, 2005

I have been hoaxed!!(Google news) delete me I don't think it is true.
posted by hortense at 5:29 PM on December 17, 2005

Er... vandalism?

Yeah, I guess my question is a tad disingenuous. It just seems so irrational.
posted by dobie at 5:30 PM on December 17, 2005

Admin please hope me!
posted by hortense at 5:31 PM on December 17, 2005

Wales made his fortune in bond trading before setting up the Bomis pornography ring. A long time devotee of Ayn Rand, Wales recently criticized the decision to grant federal funds to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, according to reports on a web discussion board.

Genius.

oh, and PP wins for his LGF comment.
posted by matteo at 5:31 PM on December 17, 2005

According to today's edit history, Jimmy Wales is also a child molester and a LOL L33T HAXX333D!!1.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:33 PM on December 17, 2005

Thanks. LGF: Charles posts are great; the comments are much less. This came from a comment, linked to what I just posted.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:33 PM on December 17, 2005

Paris is just lowering the bait here again. Please don't encourage him.
posted by xmutex at 5:35 PM on December 17, 2005

Awesome.
posted by caddis at 5:38 PM on December 17, 2005

Does "LOL L33T HAXX333D!!1." mean something obvious to you savvy folk?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:39 PM on December 17, 2005

I'm curious if someone could explain to me what the motivation of a wikipedia vandal would be.

"Because I can." Pretty much applies to all vandalism everywhere, with the exception personal vendettas.
posted by Gator at 5:39 PM on December 17, 2005

Some people are extremely stupid.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 5:41 PM on December 17, 2005

I have been hoaxed!!(Google news) delete me I don't think it is true.
posted by hortense at 8:29 PM EST on December 17 [!]

That is the point. A brilliant stunt that sucked in the Register and very effectively made a point about Wikipedia. The stunt is the news, not the faux death.
posted by caddis at 5:44 PM on December 17, 2005

A brilliant stunt that sucked in the Register

It did not "suck in" the Register. The article is being sarcastic throughout. You can also tell this by the ".uk" top-level domain in the link.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 5:46 PM on December 17, 2005

Does "LOL L33T HAXX333D!!1." mean something obvious to you savvy folk?

LOL L33T HAXX33D!!!1
posted by kosem at 5:47 PM on December 17, 2005

has been shot dead, according to Wikipedia

LOL when I got the bolded part.

Some people are extremely stupid.

um, yeah:

"A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:50 PM on December 17, 2005

So in other words the Register's bizarre beef with wikipedia incited them to vandalize it, then write an article?

By the way, the reg has about the worst web design of any popular site, especially for a tech site. Disgraceful.
posted by delmoi at 5:50 PM on December 17, 2005

I'm not sure if they were mentioning it here or not, but that Orlowski guy at the Register has a serious axe to grind. EVERY article that is critical of Wikipedia over there was written by him. And it's not just one or two... he's fired off at least a dozen salvos, each one nastier than the last.

He's basically using the Register as his soapbox. He's on a crusade against the Evil Wikipedia.

If I were the Register, I'd look pretty dimly on my staff using my website for their own personal vendettas.
posted by Malor at 5:54 PM on December 17, 2005

this one isn't gonna last long....
posted by onalark at 5:55 PM on December 17, 2005

The article is being sarcastic throughout. You can also tell this by the ".uk" top-level domain in the link.

Nice.
posted by spiderwire at 5:56 PM on December 17, 2005

I hear Michael Jackson is in the eleventh hour of his financial troubles. It must be true because it was on LGF.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 5:59 PM on December 17, 2005

If I were the Register, I'd look pretty dimly on my staff using my website for their own personal vendettas.

I'm guessing you don't look at the Register much, do you?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:02 PM on December 17, 2005

If I were the Register, I'd look pretty dimly on my staff using my website for their own personal vendettas.

You seem to be under the impression that The Register is some sort of journalistic endeavor at bottom, when it's really just a group blog for bitter techies that picked an official-sounding domain name.

And Andrew Orlowski desperately needs a good cock-knocking. I think I'll go add one to his Wikipedia entry.
posted by boaz at 6:03 PM on December 17, 2005

Thanks. LGF: Charles posts are great

I've scoured the website of the Lesbian and Gay Foundation, but I can find no reference to this incident at all.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:04 PM on December 17, 2005

more
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 6:05 PM on December 17, 2005

Next Week, On WikiHomicide:
"McGarrin, I thought you said we had the Foster case sewn up tight!"
"We do - I mean, we did! but someone keeps going back and changing the evidence!"

and

"Look Jameson, we know that you're guilty, we have you on tape! We don't need a written confession, and even if we did, it wouldn't need eighty-seven revisions!!!"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:05 PM on December 17, 2005

That's funny, the article in the Encyclopedia Britannica says he's not due to be assasinated for another 7 months...
posted by blue_beetle at 6:05 PM on December 17, 2005

the Register's bizarre beef with wikipedia incited them to vandalize it, then write an article?

Huh? I don't see the part where they say they made the edit, they're just gleefully playing with an obnoxious non-story. Or am I being thick somehow?
posted by normy at 6:08 PM on December 17, 2005

Whether the Register is responsible, sucked in, going along for the ride or whatever, the article works very well to point out one of the major shortcomings of Wikipedia.
posted by caddis at 6:15 PM on December 17, 2005

Penny Arcade's most recent. (I like the mug.)
posted by eleyna at 6:26 PM on December 17, 2005

This is absolutely retarded and frankly I'm embarrassed that anyone posted it here.
posted by kjh at 6:34 PM on December 17, 2005

Can someone change the FPP, so it says: "Hoax" rather than "Newsfilter".

Some people may rush to judgement.... ahem.
posted by storybored at 6:49 PM on December 17, 2005

Well, I'm entertained, anyway.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 6:54 PM on December 17, 2005

If this article points out any shortcomings, it's those of Orlowski, who writes in opposition to anything most people like just to bait inbound links like this one. He writes "The free-for-all, write-it-yourself website prides itself on its fact checking" which is a lie. Orlowski gets paid to write, and he's no more accurate than Wikipedia, which prides itself on being editable by anyone, or at least that's what the intro says. That some are unable to make the cognitive leap from "editable by anyone" to "potentially untrue" says more of them than it does of Wikipedia.
posted by scottreynen at 6:54 PM on December 17, 2005

I'm not sure if they were mentioning it here or not, but that Orlowski guy at the Register has a serious axe to grind. EVERY article that is critical of Wikipedia over there was written by him. And it's not just one or two... he's fired off at least a dozen salvos, each one nastier than the last.

I thought this was the seventh or eigth, but yeah it really is just this one guy on the Register who has a HUGE beef with Wikipedia.

Honestly, I don't get what the deal is with the recent Wikipedia backlash; anyone can edit Wikipedia so that tells you everything you need to know right there. Wikipedia is not a useful tool for citing in a formal paper, or even in an earnest online debate - it's just the best tool known to man for gaining a ten-minute overview of a topic with a collection of good links about it at the end. Anyone arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as a 'real encyclopedia' would make better use of their time arguing that water is wet. That you even feel the need to call attention to this means you're sort of missing the point.

When I need a quick refresher on why particle-spin can't be used for faster-than-light communications, or when I need to quickly look up some obscure three-letter-acronym technology, or when I want the Reader's Digest version of Catherine the Great's biography Wikipedia is the first place I turn to. When it comes to current events, politics, and controversial people like Henry Kissinger it is the last.
posted by Ryvar at 7:07 PM on December 17, 2005

It's pretty funny but Orlowski is actually pointing out a strength of Wikipedia.

That little assassination note was edited out and removed by wikipedians.

And here Orlowski in his article is showing the weakness of mainstream media - namely that when a wrong story is published, it doesn't get "fixed".

Ironically, it's the Register that's going to take the credibility hit.
posted by storybored at 7:10 PM on December 17, 2005

Ironically, it's the Register that's going to take the credibility hit.

You're assuming that the Orlowski article won't just disappear in the ether... that'll remain to be seen.
posted by clevershark at 7:19 PM on December 17, 2005

it's ... the best tool known to man for gaining a ten-minute overview of a topic with a collection of good links about it at the end.

Yes, and getting better at this every day.
posted by caddis at 7:20 PM on December 17, 2005

No, it was mentioned at LGF.com. So it's definitely true.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:21 PM CST on December 17 [!]

This is all anyone should ever need to know about ParisParamus.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:24 PM on December 17, 2005