Lies, damn lies and Wikipedia: Murder suspect NOT a Plaxo founder

Thursday 22nd January 2015 16:40 GMT Daedalus

The trouble with journalists and foreign names

They get them wrong anyway, and the problem is compounded when the name is the equivalent of John Smith. They don't know that, so they jump on the first example they find.

0 0 Reply
1. Thursday 22nd January 2015 16:49 GMT Irongut
  
  Re: The trouble with journalists and foreign names
  
  The trouble with commentards is they just don't read the article before posting.
  
  This has nothing to do with getting foriegn names wrong or mistaken identity and everything to do with the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia to say they were part of anything. If I were so inclined I could be part of the Apollo 11 crew according to Wikipedia. (hopefully that would be corrected pretty quick)
  
  8 0 Reply
  1. Thursday 22nd January 2015 17:51 GMT asdf
    
    Re: The trouble with journalists and foreign names
    
    Yes it never gets old seeing what must be high school jocks inserting some poor schlub's name repeatedly in Wikipedia entries.
    
    0 0 Reply
    1. Thursday 22nd January 2015 20:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: The trouble with journalists...
      
      ...is that they get their info from disgusting vats of lying shit like Wikipedia.
      
      Bunch of shit-mongers, all of them.
      
      3 3 Reply
      1. Friday 23rd January 2015 12:49 GMT Champ
        
        Re: The trouble with journalists...
        
        There are some very good journalists. I'd go so far as to say that the majority, like most people, try to do a decent job to the best of their ability.
        
        And Wikipedia is a phenomenally useful resource. Not, as you would have it, a "disgusting vat of lying shit".
        
        I'm tempted to file you under "troll".
        
        1 1 Reply
  2. Friday 23rd January 2015 02:05 GMT Daedalus
    
    Re: The trouble with journalists and foreign names
    
    Regardless of Wikipedia, a journo who does not double check facts, especially when the name involved is so common, is the problem. That and short tempered trolls.
    
    2 0 Reply
Thursday 22nd January 2015 16:51 GMT Crisp

The Daily Mail got their facts wrong?

<sarcasm style="dripping">

Well colour me surprised!

</sarcasm>

6 1 Reply
1. Thursday 22nd January 2015 23:08 GMT Oninoshiko
  
  Re: The Daily Mail got their facts wrong?
  
  Wikipedia got their facts wrong?
  
  FTFY
  
  This is not a serious source of information, and shouldn't be considered for anything more important then a drunken bar bet.
  
  2 5 Reply
Thursday 22nd January 2015 17:26 GMT Pax681

ah but you see...

he was just trying to make Plaxo know as a killer app!

2 0 Reply
Thursday 22nd January 2015 17:49 GMT asdf

see icon

>Ironically, if Nguyen weren’t currently being detained by Loudoun County Sheriff, he could use the major, generally reputable news sources in a citation to back that claim on Wikipedia.

3 0 Reply
1. Thursday 22nd January 2015 19:02 GMT Alistair
  
  Re: see icon
  
  asdf I think this perhaps makes a better 'irony' icon.
  
  Sadly, having seen a couple of events of the sort pass through Jimbo's Excellent HTML Store, such no longer merits a chuckle.
  
  1 0 Reply
  1. Friday 23rd January 2015 10:01 GMT Shady
    
    Re: see icon
    
    Maybe we need an Alanis Morisette icon. To be doubly ironic.
    
    1 0 Reply
    1. This post has been deleted by its author
Thursday 22nd January 2015 19:21 GMT Anonymous Coward

[....]generally reputable news sources in a citation to back that claim on Wikipedia

The number this time is 978.

5 0 Reply
Thursday 22nd January 2015 19:31 GMT John H Woods

We worked with some Vietnamese ...

(actually they were very good, but that's by-the-by)

... most of them were called Nguyen! I think some estimates are one third to forty percent. For comparison the top British surnames (Smith, Jones, Taylor, Brown) together make up about 3% of the total.

1 0 Reply
Thursday 22nd January 2015 21:42 GMT Anonymous Coward

Wikipedia Leftist Bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suggested_sources

Totally biased far two many left wing publications compared to right wing ones. (To try and reduce bias surely best thing would be to look at both).

The truth is probably somewhere in-between but if there is no right wing source that is allowed then basically Wikipedia is leftist propaganda.

3 4 Reply
1. Thursday 22nd January 2015 22:14 GMT Destroy All Monsters
  
  Re: Wikipedia Leftist Bias
  
  You seem to be ready to do some editing as "anonymous user"?
  
  2 2 Reply
2. Thursday 22nd January 2015 22:50 GMT edge_e
  
  Re: Wikipedia Leftist Bias
  
  Is this a complaint about fox news not being on the list?
  
  They're so reliable after all
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
  
  3 1 Reply
  1. Friday 23rd January 2015 03:05 GMT Mark 85
    
    Re: Wikipedia Leftist Bias
    
    There's just two things to remember about Fox: News and Reliable aren't part of that company.
    
    1 1 Reply
  2. Saturday 24th January 2015 00:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Wikipedia Leftist Bias
    
    > They're so reliable after all
    
    > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html
    
    OK, we know that's not true but besides, so fucking what if it were? Last I heard this still was a free country after all and people had a right to have whatever beliefs they fancied. If an entire city decided to go Muslim/Zoroastrian/Zen Buddhist that's still none else's business.
    
    0 0 Reply
Friday 23rd January 2015 05:46 GMT Sir Barry

Nothing new

I'm not surprised, since when did the press let the facts get in the way of a story?

1 0 Reply
Friday 23rd January 2015 15:02 GMT Alan Denman

Wikipedia is just another war zone...

It is full of conmen and fanboys disgracing the truth.

Post there at you peril, it may end up being a war !

1 0 Reply