Months ago, I sneakily added subtle misinformation to a Wikipedia article (a pro wrestler bio) by making information up out of the blue (the "facts" I put into the article are not facts, but rather information which I invented) but because it does not look to be blatantly false, it was never removed. A few days ago, the information was quoted in a mainstream news article. I will not say here which article I "vandalized" or what newspaper's web site (and possibly print newspaper, as I'm unsure if the article on the web site was also printed in the newspaper itself) because then the information would be removed, and it is also possible that if I gave this information out, Wikipedia could do a checkuser on my IP or user name when I added this information and then find other IPs or user names I used to edit Wikipedia and block those as well. But what they can't do is take back the fact that a legitimate news source quoted Wikipedia "facts" as "fact" when in fact they were not facts at all.

That's a lot of "facts" in one sentence.

Anyway, I may be willing to give out a link to the article or select bits of the info via PM to people here who I trust but regardless, I wanted this to be known.

The date that the online article was printed is July 20, 2007.

Many of us have done the same thing. It's best to keep quiet about it, even when it is discovered and talked about.

For crying out loud, why would you do this? Are you insane, man? You're giving the admins an excuse to step on our necks!

Don't punish the readers for the wrongs committed by others. Admins care about power, not content. Defacing pages doesn't affect them one bit.

But if everyone becomes aware how untrustworthy Wikipedia is, it will cease to matter and most admins will realise that there's no point in having power in a bad joke.

When I was using Wikipedia, I was so outraged at the PA article that I wrote a deliberately false article (false in the same way as the PA article was) on a similar crime, the Backpacker murders. To this date, 2 years later, the article remains largely untouched, and remains highly inaccurate.

You might say that this is my fault, but again remember that I was asked to do this. I didn't want to do it, but I had no choice.

So have they fixed it up? Is someone in there right now saying how terrible it is to have such an inaccurate article? Not at all.

Luckily, while that is a case that is just as much in dispute as the PA case, it didn't get quite the same level of publicity.

Apparently "most prolific serial killer in Australian history (8)" doesn't come close to the fame of "biggest single day mass murder in Australian history (35)". 35 vs 8 seems to be why one is linked more than the other. Both are false. Both of them have woefully inaccurate Wikipedia articles. One of them I wrote after being forced to do it, and the other one I have tried bitterly to stop.

Do we call this vandalism? Is it the fault of an individual author who is forced to do this kind of thing because if they try to introduce truth, it is changed? Or is it the fault of Wikipedia, who makes such things common?

Wait till CheckUser expires. I think it's 3 months. Then go and tell the press about it. Or heck tell the press now. I think it's most important for this kind of stuff to be put in a newspaper. If you tell this forum some admin will just go and revert it and it'll be forgotten.

They're probably beavering away right now, trying to find it from the few clues that Looch dropped. DC? Only Looch knows for sure!

Looch you should do a lot more and maybe make a collection of news articles that posted mistruths from Wikipedia (not just what you added). Then every so often post them up somewhere for all to see.

Wikipedia is hard to kill. If you introduce lies into Wikipedia, you wind up messing up lots of people who have nothing to do with the corrupt admin structure.

I can't say I see the harm of misinforming people about professional wresting. It not like its computer games or dinosaurs.

That will be the main cause of Wikipedia's demise. Wikipedia will become a bad joke, universally understood as such, and ridiculed into the dustbin of history. Jimbo will become known as the man who made the internet suck and reviled. Albeit a rich man who made the internet suck. This is already happening, and the negative aura is swelling by the month.

I see people using wikipedia to win internet arguments. Eg. "You're wrong, wikipedia says...."

That's easily fixed. You edit it yourself and then say "No, it says..."

Thinking about the poor soul wondering around with misinformation about the Junkyard Dog or Kamala the Ugandan Giant would wear on my conscious too much.