Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellisonz

(27,737 posts)
Sun Feb 19, 2012, 05:24 PM Feb 2012

The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

February 12, 2012
By Timothy Messer-Kruse

For the past 10 years I've immersed myself in the details of one of the most famous events in American labor history, the Haymarket riot and trial of 1886. Along the way I've written two books and a couple of articles about the episode. In some circles that affords me a presumption of expertise on the subject. Not, however, on Wikipedia.

The bomb thrown during an anarchist rally in Chicago sparked America's first Red Scare, a high-profile show trial, and a worldwide clemency movement for the seven condemned men. Today the martyrs' graves are a national historic site, the location of the bombing is marked by a public sculpture, and the event is recounted in most American history textbooks. Its Wikipedia entry is detailed and elaborate.

A couple of years ago, on a slow day at the office, I decided to experiment with editing one particularly misleading assertion chiseled into the Wikipedia article. The description of the trial stated, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... "

Coincidentally, that is the claim that initially hooked me on the topic. In 2001 I was teaching a labor-history course, and our textbook contained nearly the same wording that appeared on Wikipedia. One of my students raised her hand: "If the trial went on for six weeks and no evidence was presented, what did they talk about all those days?" I've been working to answer her question ever since.

More: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (Original Post) ellisonz Feb 2012 OP
Thanks. It does little good to tell the truth to those who cannot hear. JDPriestly Feb 2012 #1
Thanks, ellisonz. kiva Feb 2012 #2
You're welcome. ellisonz Feb 2012 #3

kiva

(4,373 posts)
2. Thanks, ellisonz.
Mon Feb 27, 2012, 12:50 PM
Feb 2012

In the past I've had no problem with having students look at Wikipedia's bibliography as a starting point for research (I tell them to be skeptical readers of the entries themselves) but now I need to rethink the bibliographies themselves.

ellisonz

(27,737 posts)
3. You're welcome.
Tue Feb 28, 2012, 01:09 AM
Feb 2012

I really wouldn't take Wikipedia to be more useful for a quick review of non-controversial topics. I wouldn't use it as a starting point for a research project. Always start with well-reviewed publications or journal articles, and even then you always have to think critically.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»American History»The 'Undue Weight' of Tru...