I was just reading about the New York Philharmonic Orchestra on en.WIkipedia after hearing
they would be performing in North Korea. I'm certainly not the only person to do this;
I imagine thousands of others have. The end of the article contains a new section on this
particular news item, and something quite subtle struck me. Perhaps I am sensitive to this
sort of thing, but here it is:
Because of limited access to television sets, the
question remains just how broadly such a telecast could be received in North Korea where
only an estimated quarter- to half-million TV sets can be found.[10]
I clicked on the 10, and the citation was to:
10. ^ Wikipedia "Communications in North
Korea"
I clicked on that, and here is the entire text of that section of the article:
Television
As of 2003, there are four television stations:
* Korean Central Television (also broadcast internationally via satellite)
* Mansudae Television
* Korean Educational and Cultural Network
* Kaesong Television targeting South Korea. [1]
I clicked on the reference for Kaesong and saw:
1. ^ CIA World Factbook: North Korea
I clicked on that, and here is the CIA's info on the subject:
(includes Korean Central Television, Mansudae
Television, Korean Educational and Cultural Network, and Kaesong Television targeting
South Korea) (2003)
Useless. I went back and noticed that Korean Central Television was the only non-red link,
so I clicked that as well, and finally found the "reference," which is itself
uncited:
The reach is limited, as only around 40% of North
Koreans own a television set (with most of the owners living in large cities such as
Pyongyang).
This kind of subterfuge strikes me as particularly nefarious. Certainly it is not in line
with our goals to cite Wikipedia articles as if they were authoritative references? I
would typically run a database query to see exactly how prevalent this practice is, but am
unable to at the moment. Nonetheless, I find this single case disturbing!
Comments?
Brian