What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
38 Comments
- PrezKennedy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I love how these ***** send emails to the wikipedia "OMG TAKE ME OFF"... hey, *****: If there's an inaccurate entry, FIX IT! That's what the Wiki is!"
They shouldn't have to. Some have, and even had their changes reverted. - ultimate_ed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3BS - Every Tom, Dick, or Harry who ends up having an article written about them in Wikipedia shouldn't have to be the ones to go track it down and make "corrections". Wikipedia certainly has the potential to be a great compendium of knowledge, but it still needs a lot of work in the accountability and checking department before it can ever be considerd a serious resource.
- Settra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I had a wiki entry about me once..
- richiejp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure wikipedia is full of a lot of crap which is completely wrong, fortuneately it's full of a lot of crap which is completely right as well. I'd say it's more reliable than the complete twisted bollocks you see in newspapers these days ;)
- Huze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Irony, thy name is Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Chase - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i would say you ought to think twice before pulling such a stupid joke, especially if it'll be as public as on the internet.
on the other hand i salute mr. chase for taking the responsibility and accepting the consequences of his actions.
growing up is never easy ;) - multifaceted, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would have sued him, if that makes me a bad person so be it but there are better ways to shock or play a joke on someone.
- tkinnun0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Resigned and not rehired = fired.
- dbrodbeck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Some redneck? Come now, do you even know who the person was? He worked for RFK and was accused, by the guy that was eventually caught, of aiding in the killings of JFK and RFK.
- blowdart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information."
Correct, however wikipedia needs to stop selling itself as such. Remember the founding thought behind it,
"an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language". That's how it's still "sold", despite quality being lacking. - troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Mr. Seigenthaler, founder of the First Amendment Center, said that as a longtime advocate of free speech, he found it awkward to be tracking down someone who had exercised that right."
Its amazing how people change their tune when they find themselves on the victim side - Jarrod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"he had written the material suggesting that Mr. Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy."
How is that a joke? What's so funny about it? Say he was involved in a sheep prostitution ring or something. I don't think insinuating murder plots really constitutes a hilarious joke. I, for one, am glad he lost his job. - GamblerZG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0PS: Should people who submit biased and misleading entries here be accountable?
- DesertFoxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1did you guys read the whole thing....
The guy gave up his job be cuz of this! i realy dont think hes an ass... - elfguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0SOCIAL sites are ruled by people. If many people are stupid, that's what you get in the content, but that's the whole point. Wikipedia isn't a scientifc journal, it's a generic knowledge base written by people.
- GamblerZG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Credebility"? "Accountable"? You just don't get it, do you? Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. It never will be, and it does not need to be. It's a way of communication. It's a way person A can write about some stuff that person B is interested in. It's like you're walk down the street, stop random person and ask about something. Should you be able to held him "accountable" for the wrong answer, even if it was intentional?
Heck, who is accountable anyway? Professional journalists? Don't make me laugh. - CryingWolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This shouldn't change a damn thing. Some of you people take this way to seriously! Wikipedia is a great resource. IMHO, Wikipedia should make no changes in the way they work because of this. Yeah, they may have bad entries, if you know something is wrong CHANGE IT. It is that simple.
"I love how these ***** send emails to the wikipedia "OMG TAKE ME OFF"... hey, *****: If there's an inaccurate entry, FIX IT! That's what the Wiki is!"
"They shouldn't have to. Some have, and even had their changes reverted."
They should fix it! Or anyone who spots a bad entry should take the time and responsibility and change it!!! That is what the Wiki is!!!
In the end if we take the time to fix these things then this would not be a big problem! - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"BS - Every Tom, Dick, or Harry who ends up having an article written about them in Wikipedia shouldn't have to be the ones to go track it down and make "corrections". Wikipedia certainly has the potential to be a great compendium of knowledge, but it still needs a lot of work in the accountability and checking department before it can ever be considerd a serious resource."
agreed. - zelig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia might be a little too loose, since articles written by one person are sometimes reverted the same day by someone else, or deleted entirely.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OMG, I want a Buick!
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Keep in mind that the Seigenthaler article was not linked to by any other article, and thus unreachable without searching for the exact text-string or opening it directly by its title. Since it had few page hits and was essentially an island, it wasn't exactly high up on the list for review.
- mattdm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What the hell is this "suffering a blow to its credibility" claim all about? I mean, are people really shocked, shocked that this could ever have happened?
- rookieone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lmao!!! man this dude was crazy doin something like that!!
- Zasdad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Mr. Seigenthaler showed genuine class in the face of this horrible slander. He was forgiving and refused to sue Chase over the matter. In the United States of 2005, that's remarkable restraint.
- Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This reminds me of all the script kiddies in games. Little dweeb ***** who, because of internet obscurity, can ***** with resources and applications people spent much of their personal and professional endeavors trying to enjoy.
If we would only take these little 'men-children' and financially spank their little juvenile asses, maybe they would think twice before pursuing their little pranks. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, just wow, this article was absoleutley fakintaing, I never have heard of a wikipedia but I sure thin k this sounds like a neat featre on the internet maybe I write a stimt about mysewlf but if anyone can delet it, why is the point?
- fennec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dude is 38 and should have known better. That said, he acted accordingly when busted. He apologized in writing and personally. And Mr Seigenthaler was gracious enough not to sue him.
And while this is a blow to Wikipedia's credibility, it's only so because of the publicity. Anyone remember when the new pope's photo kept being replaced by a picture of Senator Palpatine?
Wikipedia is a good place to start looking for information. But you should take everything there with a grain of salt. Lack of accountability will always attract clowns and pranksters. - MrLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy? absurd, people need to get a sense of hurmor.
- genen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does WIKI allow completely anonymous entries? That is a problem if it does. It should allow anyone to add info or edit, but ONLY as a registered user who has been verified (through a $1 CC transaction or something) to be who they say they are. I think that would allow everyone to post, but keep some control of idiots.
- PrezKennedy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"They should fix it! Or anyone who spots a bad entry should take the time and responsibility and change it!!! That is what the Wiki is!!!
In the end if we take the time to fix these things then this would not be a big problem!"
Hello, are you dense? That's what I just said. They DID try and fix them but in some cases their changes were actually reverted.
And even then, they shouldn't need to fix them themselves.
With their current setup, Wikipedians would be unable to stop someone hellbent on destroying their precious encyclopedia.
No accountability = Recipe for abuse - mrgomel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"In a confessional letter to Mr. Seigenthaler, Mr. Chase said he thought Wikipedia was a 'gag' Web site"
Idiot. He got the wrong 'gag' website:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - mrgomel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr - Zeuser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0WIKIPEDIA is useless!
Just like democracy, it' only as good as the people who build it. This of course shows two tendencies: 1 - More power is getting in th hands of idiots. 2 - The internet is giving more voice to th growing mass of idiots.
Projects like wikipedia are doomed to fail because it's way too people dependant. This is why true encyclopedias are written by Scholars, not simpletons.
Want to know the scary part? These tendencies are also reflected right here on Digg. I'm seeing an increasing tendency towards dumb articles, dumb responses and just plain dumb behavior by Diggers.
Digg is also doomed to become nothing more than a popularity contest for what's cool in they eye of the increasing swarms of dumb users. A recipe of failure! - zqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0As usual the idiots spoil a good thing for everybody else. The result, more regulations and rules which take the joy out of everything in life where there used to be freedom to make choices. Glad we now know who did it and why.
Perhaps, but I doubt it, this will be a lesson to all who think they are anonymous on the Internet. - chessyang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0someone put something up about the RIAA
- hater2win, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0SanAntonio2win.
- Moose_Head, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Who cares?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I love how these ***** send emails to the wikipedia "OMG TAKE ME OFF"... hey, *****: If there's an inaccurate entry, FIX IT! That's what the Wiki is!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is