[WikiEN-l] About our disclaimer and what I wish...

Tue Dec 6 20:02:49 UTC 2005

Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 12/6/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>"Now, you do have a general disclaimer on the site, it says that
>>Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here,
>>none of the authors, contributors, or anyone else connected with
>>Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of
>>any inaccurate or libellous information." - Kyra Phillips, talking to me
>>on CNN
>>
>>I wish my response could have been:
>>
>>"Yes, Kyra, and let me read you the disclaimer from _your_ website:
>>NEITHER CNN, ITS AFFILIATES NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES,
>>AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT CNN
>>INTERACTIVE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY
>>WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF CNN
>>INTERACTIVE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY OR CONTENT OF ANY
>>INFORMATION, SERVICE, OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH CNN INTERACTIVE."
>>
>>But I didn't have that handy.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, it's pretty obvious from the interview that she was out to get
>you.  CNN's coverage evinces clear bias.  We do need to work on your
>preinterview briefings, though....
>
>It's been interesting to note the errors, minor and major, in the news
>coverage of this incident.  One radio report in Chicagoland reported
>that Seigenthaler was a former Senator.  At least one blog report
>demanded absolute accuracy -- while misspelling Seigenthaler's name
>consistently throughout.  Almost all the print and electronic media
>articles I've seen misreport Wikipedia's URL as www.wikipedia.com
>(instead of .org).  The conclusion I've reached is that the media is
>no more accurate than we are.  I think it would be a really good idea
>to take the media coverage of this incident and identify all the
>errors in their coverage -- some of which reaches the level of libel
>itself (such as the one that says that Jimbo ignored Seigenthaler's
>entreaties for four months before bothering to act).  Their house is
>no cleaner than ours.
>
That would be a great article on the nature of media accuracy; it could 
be widely circulated.  I don't know if they coould handle having all 
these bubbles burst.

Ec