# Wikipedia - evidence it's beyond use?



## Z100 (26 Feb 2007)

Just got an email telling me about the Wikipedia entry for Donie Cassidy.

 

But does this add weight to the view that cyber vandalism is making my favourite website unusable?  

PS Donie didn't manage the This post will be deleted if not edited immediately and Mary Chain and Sigue Sigue Sputnik.............did he?  


*Donal ("Donie" "Pistols at Dawn") Cassidy* (born September 15, 1905) is an Irish businessman and Teachta Dála (representing Westmeath for Fianna Fáil).

Cassidy was born in Castlepollard in County Westmeath. He came to prominence in Ireland through the showband scene when he played the bagpipes with Jon Tobin and the Firehouse, and then moved into showbusiness management. He was the manager of Foster and Allen, a popular singing duo who enjoyed success inside and out of Ireland, although he received a great deal of criticism when they apppeared on the British popular music show "Top of the Pops" in what seemed to be Leprachaun outfits. He also managed The This post will be deleted if not edited immediately and Mary Chain for a time, as well as British pop-cyberpunk band Sigue Sigue Sputnik. Musical differences ended Cassidy's relationship with both bands, the Castlepollard man accusing both of 'selling out' on their hardcore roots.

He first became involved in politics in 1922 when he was elected as a Fianna Fáil Senator on the Labour Panel. He was a member of Westmeath County Council from 1985 until 2003 at which point he resigned from the council due to the abolition of the dual mandate.

Cassidy was elected to Dáil Éireann for the constituency of Westmeath at the 2002 election, taking the seat off sitting TD and Government Minister Minister Mary O'Rourke, who subsequently vowed to feed his entrails to coyote. This created a rift between the two politicians, one that is set to reignite at the next general election when both candidates contest the Longford-Westmeath constituency.

On seeing Donie many people ask: "What's that on his head?!" It is not, under any legal circumstances, a toupee, although it does resemble a ginger cat.

In 2006 Donie finished second only to Norris from Coronation Street in a poll of Irish over-90-year-olds, the question being: "Which mature man most lights your fire?".


Business interests

Cassidy owns two Dublin hotels and is building another with his own bare hands. He also owned the National Wax Museum in Dublin, supplying much of the wax from his very own ears.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2007)

Like most vandalism _Wikipedia _vandalism is pretty childish and often seems to be the work of people who are easily amused.


----------



## Z100 (26 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Like most vandalism _Wikipedia _vandalism is pretty childish and often seems to be the work of people who are easily amused.


 
That goes without saying, but I just don't understand why Wikipedia aren't doing more to protect their own site. I used to assume that they had a panel of trusted contributors, until I read about some American guy treatening to sue them over libellous comments on his entry, it was only then I realised any Tom, Dick or Harry could write any old crap about people. Having an encyclopedia-type site put together by anonymous contributors probably seemed like a sweet idea at the time......like most internet ideas.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2007)

Anybody can change _Wikipedia _content. But persistent valdalism does lead to articles being locked. And vandalism is normally reverted pretty quickly. In spite of isolated incidents of valdalism _Wikipedia _seems generally to be a pretty reliable source of info.


----------



## rabbit (27 Feb 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Anybody can change _Wikipedia _content.


And it often is.  I would never use or trust Wikipedia. Anyone who would use it as a reference loses credibility.


----------



## diarmuidc (27 Feb 2007)

rabbit said:


> And it often is.  I would never use or trust Wikipedia. Anyone who would use it as a reference loses credibility.


Well that's a sweeping statement that I cannot let pass without comment.

 If you are writing some peer reviewed document, then NO encyclopedia can be credibly used as a reference. To single out wikipedia is unfair.

A recent comparsion done between Wikipedia and Briticannia by [broken link removed]found negligable differences in accuracy between the two sources.

If you are looking for a bit of quick knowledge on a subject, Wikipedia is a good source. If you are not happy about it feel free to splash out on a set of Britannica but don't be deceived into thinking your source of info is of much higher quality. It isn't.

There are plenty of other sites with various different schemes (such as the one mentioned above) however you've probably not heard of them. You know why? Because they are not as popular and vast. It's a trade off that I personally think worked well. I know Wikipedia is where I go to if I want some quick info on a topic I don't know much about. I'm not using it as a source in my PhD thesis but neither would I use any other encyclopedia.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2007)

Yeah - I disagree too. Vandalism is usually sorted out pretty quickly. Just look at the change logs for pages that are prone to this. Obviously you have to maintain a healthy skepticism about any source of information but to dismiss _Wikipedia _in its totality is too rash in my opinion.


----------



## JohnnyBoy (28 Feb 2007)

Interesting!
I recently used a Wikipedia article re Neil Armstrong( my brother asked me to print something off the Internet for a project being done by his 10 yr old daughter).
I printed about 20pages off & didn't bother reading it.My brother did & came across references to fellatio!!.Thankfully my niece hadn't read it yet,but I was amazed-he would have had an interesting time explaining it!


----------



## darag (28 Feb 2007)

I think with it's rising popularity, vandalising wikipedia has become a very popular sport.  The sport involves inserting some rubbish into an entry and then emailing the URL to all your mates with the instructions to pass it on - har har.  Wiki is stubbornly clinging to its open trusting policy but there are simply too many articles - especially small ones which aren't viewed or watched regularly - to be watched.  I've reverted vandalism to a couple of Irish related entries which had been unnoticed for months.  Their ideals mean that they seem to be loath to ban users or IP addresses even when their only edit has been to insert "penis" or something like that into an article.

Wikis worked well in an academic or small community environment.  The technology and the ideas simply do not scale as far as I'm concerned.  It's amazing they've gotten this far but I think they'll either have to introduce more draconian controls or else it will collapse.  Even as a contributer, I don't think it has a future in it's current format; when I started any time I spent on it was adding (hopefully useful) information at this stage, if I spend anytime on it at all, it seems to involve fixing vandalism.

As for that comparison with Britanica, it was conducted a good while back and when it comes to accuracy there is a big difference in my mind between an article claiming that Donal Cassidy managed Sigue Sigue Sputnic and an article which, for example, gave the wrong year for when he was born.


----------



## Gordanus (28 Feb 2007)

I thought it was funny.  It's pretty obviously a piss-take.   I believe Bernie and Mary Harney regularly get Bebo and MySpace pages of a similar nature, and various small towns which don't provide enough entertainment for their youth can also be done in this way.


----------



## ClubMan (5 Mar 2007)

JohnnyBoy said:


> Interesting!
> I recently used a Wikipedia article re Neil Armstrong( my brother asked me to print something off the Internet for a project being done by his 10 yr old daughter).
> I printed about 20pages off & didn't bother reading it.My brother did & came across references to fellatio!!.Thankfully my niece hadn't read it yet,but I was amazed-he would have had an interesting time explaining it!


So what? Nowhere does _Wikipedia _purport to being a sanitised children's encyclopedia and, as with other sources of information, the onus should ultimately be on the parents/guradians of children to ensure that they are not exposed to what they might deem to be "unsuitable" material rather than it being censored for all and sundry.


----------



## Z100 (5 Mar 2007)

ClubMan said:


> So what? Nowhere does _Wikipedia _purport to being a sanitised children's encyclopedia and, as with other sources of information, the onus should ultimately be on the parents/guradians of children to ensure that they are not exposed to what they might deem to be "unsuitable" material rather than it being censored for all and sundry.



  Nowhere did JohnnyBoy call for Wikipedia material to be "censored for all and sundry", nor did he dispute that it's parents/guardians' responsibility to vet the material before allowing their kids to view it. All he did was recount an amusing example of why Wikipedia isn't a "sanitised children's encyclopedia"! Don't jump down his throat!


----------



## rmelly (11 Mar 2007)

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ab022476-574b-4579-b7a5-3a3b0f91eb23&k=69668


----------



## Persius (18 Mar 2007)

JohnnyBoy said:


> Interesting!
> I recently used a Wikipedia article re Neil Armstrong( my brother asked me to print something off the Internet for a project being done by his 10 yr old daughter).
> I printed about 20pages off & didn't bother reading it.My brother did & came across references to fellatio!!.Thankfully my niece hadn't read it yet,but I was amazed-he would have had an interesting time explaining it!


 
Had to do some more research on that, as I'd heard similar. There's a very funny urban myth (see [broken link removed]) regarding that. But according to this NASA transcript (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.step.html) there's no truth behind it. Pity, it makes a great story.


----------

