Wikipedia Blacklisting Associated Content Hurts Wikipedia's Credibility Even More
Wikipedia Editor Says Q&A Interview with Music Artist Isn't 'reliable Source'
I first found this out when correcting an incorrect birth year for an artist I'd recently interviewed. When I tried to provide a source on Wikipedia to show that the artist was born in 1973, not 1972, the change was updated but the source was denied. When suggesting my link, in which I'd spoken to the singer directly, as one to approve for their White List, I was given the following response, "associatedcontent is not a reliable source, you have a conflict of interest, and associatedcontent pays (also you) well for being linked to. --Dirk Beetstra."
I find it ironic that a site that is identified as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has the audacity to blacklist anybody else's site. Considering anybody can just come to Wikipedia and change information, Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source. While I do understand that there may be AC Source Writers who link their entries solely for visits, that was not my intention. I asked the singer about his birth year because I was pretty sure Wikipedia had it wrong but wanted to make sure it wasn't me who was mistaken. Now how does Wikipedia thank me for correcting the year but then not let me use my reference?
What I find more odd about AssociatedContent.com being blacklisted is Dirk Beetstra says AC pays "well" for being linked to. I can guarantee there are some entries I've written that do not compare to others, and most of my top content has nothing to do with being linked anywhere else. Search engine optimization writing and being easily found is what boosts visits, not just a bunch of people linking your work. On top of that, anyone's site who has interesting content is probably going to be paid "well."
If the issue is AC Source Writers being paid for their content, then no site should be eligible as a reference. I have another entertainment interview referenced on Wikipedia that an outside user linked from a newspaper I previously worked at, and you better believe that newspaper is selling online ads. So why is it okay for a newspaper or magazine site to make a profit but not AssociatedContent.com?
Dirk Beetstra told me I could find "better sources for the information," but what better source could there be than the artist personally telling me when he was born? I keep recordings of all of my interviews. Now if the artist saying when he was born isn't reliable, how is a writer for another publication getting the same information any different? While I understand that the Web site is being punished more than the writer, it's still counterproductive to Wikipedia getting accurate information. Don't punish your own site by trying to punish Associated Content and its writers.
At every educational textbook publishing company and newspaper I've worked for, I've been instructed not to use Wikipedia because it's not a reliable source. How ironic is it when Wikipedia makes its own site look worse by not letting writers with credible interviews correct inaccuracies? No wonder it needed funding to keep the site going. At the rate it's going, it'll be out of business soon.
My suggestion to AC Source Writers who are using Wikipedia as a credible source is you shouldn't do it anyway considering there are too many errors in the content. But on top of that, if they're blacklisting your work, why should you link information to theirs or help correct the inaccuracies? I made that mistake once, but it won't happen again.
Published by Shamontiel
Shamontiel is the author of Round Trip and Change for a Twenty, and in mid-October became the Chicago Tribune s Digital News Editor. She works on National Travel, Health and occasionally Breaking News, and w... View profile
Wikipedia Should Never Be Listed as a SourceStudents, writers and journalists all have the idea that they can write anything simply because it is located on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia should never be used as a source.- Article Contributions to AC by Sources of Italian HeritageOctober is a big month to celebrate Italian heritage. So who's on the AC list? Let's find out...
- Full Game Download: Reliable or Risky?This article talks about the reliable and risky sources for a full game download.
- Wood-Burning Stove: An Alternative Heat Source for Your HomeEveryone's seen the classic pot-bellied wood-burning stove, sitting in the middle of the frontier home and keeping the family warm. But with energy bills soaring this old energy source has gained new life with innovat...
- Why Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Source for FactsI will presume that most people are familiar with Wikipedia. It describes itself as "an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which I translate to mean that anyone can cite one's self as an authority...
- Wikipedia Vs the Encyclopedia Britannica
- Wikipedia is as Reliable as Any Other Source
- What is Wikipedia?
- Thinking About Trusting Wikipedia? Think Again
- Wikipedia Wars: Using the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia to Further Personal Agendas
- Why Wikipedia Isn't Credible
- AC Source Book, by Sabah Karimi: E-Book Review
- Wikipedia has incorrect birth years for several artists on its site.
- Wikipedia has AssociatedContent.com on a blacklist.
- Wikipedia is defined as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
18 Comments
Post a CommentOn and on "Mary" always in a rush with only an hour Internet time at library; easier to not log in to leave comment. Generally I signed "Mary (Alyce Rocco)" or just pen name, but when rushing did not bother identifying myself.
City Hall because registering of birth would be the only credible source of someone's factual birth date. I mean, even an interviewed artist can (and have) lie about their birthdate.
Hey Alyce, at the time that I replied to your comment, I didn't connect "Mary" to "Alyce." I forgot that's your first name. Dust off the memory bank. And yeah, as for that City Hall reference, I just scratched my head. Regardless of the site the information is published on, I'd have had the same interview no matter the platform. When the celeb's comment, which I recorded, isn't enough clarification I don't know what is. I haven't used Wikipedia since.
My previous comment was not directed at you. You made a very good point here about linking to sources, people exactly like you. People who do interviews do not exactly say: Let me see your birth certificate and if Wikipedia wants better sources, then the link should go to City Hall of everyone's birth city.
Sue, yes, this is a valid point. I was just stunned that they blacklisted AC. This wasn't about a profit for me. I just hate to see information wrong. If I see something inaccurate on IMDB or any other site that has celebrity content for someone I've interviewed, I'll let them know. I usually ask the celeb directly, "Is ______ true?" Thanks for reading. Sandra, thanks for reading as well.
Thanks for your article. One of the problems with wikipedia (in addition to being inaccurate and the blatant plagiarism) is the people that are in charge. Saw an interview with the head of wikipedia who said only ten people are employed with the company - all the rest are volunteer and many have other motive, like keeping their competitors name off wikipedia. When you get this situation, there is no one to fight as no one answers for the problem and they get their money from donations.
That's terrible. Thanks for this info -- did not know this before.
Lynn, I'm so glad it worked out for you but in a way I wish you didn't have to make use of it. I was fed up with people just yanking my content from AC, too. People were just blatantly copying and pasting full interviews and articles. Interesting how some AC writers are worthy on everybody else's site but Wikipedia, the one site that lets anybody edit content. I kept the wrong birth year on Wikipedia, too. If they can't accept my link, I can't help them with inaccuracies.
(Please delete my prior post - Errors - Argh) Too bad all the plagiarist bloggers don't think AC was 'unreliable.' Maybe I'd not need to write a letter to our AC Designated Agent several times every week to help get my pirated AC exclusive work off those sites. (Can't thank you too often, Shamontiel, for reminding me to update my google alerts.)
Marie Anne, I hadn't really thought about it the other way around. I've never heard from AC editors to NOT use Wikipedia though regardless of what some of the writers think. Although I've never done it, I'm pretty sure I could use a Wikipedia entry in my Resources link. Correct me if I'm wrong though. But either way it goes, I could see them being weary of using certain links. However, if the editors can clearly see that the entry I'm linking is credible, why block it anyway?