http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Irish-studen...01451.html?.v=1

WELCOME TO YAHOO TODAY...
Note date...MAY 11... The wiki house fire is burning bright tonight

Any one that gives money to Wikipedia now is a dork because the reason wiki exist now is to help fund Big SUE Gardner's 450K /year stipend.

Yahoo... let the truth about wiki and the sociopaths who run, administrator and game wiki should be outed and shown the lying, greedy psycho thugs they are.

I agree with both of you:

From TFA:

When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

So, it's agreed: Wikipedia GOOD, Journalism bad, right?

A Wikipedian lying in wait with a trap for unwary and lazy journalist is a new twist on When Encyclopedias Attack. This is made all the worst by it exploiting the recent death of the person "quoted." Seems like a story peopled with bad eggs all around.

The thing is. Wikipedia acted quickly to remove it, as uncited. The "journalists" didn't do any fact checking, and let it sit there for a month.

That is what I said. A deliberate, if transient, lie on one side and clueless laziness on the other. How any one could read this a journalist bad/Wikipedia good is beyond me. Bad and more bad.

The wiki apologist singing the praises of the dank dark swamp which harbors the large assortment of psychopathic loons , sex deviants, thugs, punks, Sociopaths, with delusions of Napoleon and other OCDS driven kooks, agenda pushers, and Liberal nut jobs.

More like numerous journalists:

The ones above plus:

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/...1-journalism-0/

But that's ok, Joey.. no one expects you to renounce your cranial-rectal inversion with regards to WP.

This is just lazy journalism. It's pretty sad actually. The news media can be so programmed sometimes. The most classic example was when a Howard Stern fan trolled Peter Jennings during the O.J. chase. Fact check people before you make a horse's ass out of yourself.

Any lazy arsed journalist that uses Wikipedia as a reliable source deserves a whole heap of shit deposited upon them.

Hey, how are you doing on tracking down Noroton? Have you phoned his workplace yet?

Hey, maybe it's time for another skull dance? Get Davey in make-up and call together the press.

By extension, why should ANYONE use Wikipedia as a source?

If that isn't a rhetorical question, then the only acceptable answer is; Because they have a twisted sense of humour.

Is your avatar a twisted sister?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief..._twisted_sister

Thanks for reminding me again how much I live The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/rhino...uck_in_dead_end

There are cons that work on dishonest people, and there are cons that work on honest people, because they think that others are just like them and play by the same set of rules. What happened is that journalists mistook Wikipedia for bona fide journalism, in short, they AGF'd themselves.

Jon

There is a very long history of media hoaxes, many of which are far funnier or far more pernicious than anything coming out Wikipedia so far. This guy, for instance, has been doing it for over 40 years. He is the one responsible for this hilarious classic.

It seems to be a rule of thumb that for each hour a deadline draws nearer, a journo loses four IQ points.

Could we add that last quote to WP:V and WP:RS? Oh, wait-- its your own original observation. Snap. Too bad, since it's true.

The distinctive feature of Wikipedia — and the fact that I even have to say this demonstrates the IQ-decrementing effects of Wikipedia exposure — is that other media managements take all the obvious measures to minimize the number of such hoaxes, while Wikipediots are religiously dedicated to avoiding all the obvious measures.

Jon Awbrey