At the end of last month, Shane Fitzgerald, a twenty-two-year-old student at University College Dublin in Ireland, performed an experiment for one of his classes. The goal was “to show that journalists use Wikipedia as a primary source and to demonstrate the power the internet has over newspaper reporting.”
After Fitzgerald learned that French composer Maurice Jarre had died, he immediately went to Jarre’s Wikipedia page, inserted some fake quotations, and waited to see if they would be picked up by news organizations. His experiment worked better than he ever imagined, as evidenced by this correction from The Guardian:
An obituary of Maurice Jarre (31 March, page 36) opened with a quotation which we are now advised had been invented as a hoax, and was never said by the composer: “My life has been one long soundtrack. Music was my life, music brought me to life.” The article closed with: “Music is how I will be remembered,” said Jarre. “When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head and that only I can hear.” These quotes appear to have originated as a deliberate insertion in the composer’s Wikipedia entry in the wake of his death on 28 March, and from there were duplicated on various internet sites.
Fitzgerald wrote in the Irish Times this week that he was shocked to see his quotes used by so many reputable news organizations. “Quality newspapers in England, India, America and as far away as Australia had my words in their reports of Jarre’s death,” he wrote.
Fitzgerald’s experiment might sound familiar to espionage buffs. It was a variation on the “barium meal,” a term used by the British intelligence service MI5 to describe a process used to expose a leak or a mole: different versions of similar information would be fed to several sources and then you’d wait to see which version leaked, or ended up in enemy hands. Track it back and, voila, you’ve got the culprit. Tom Clancy called it the “canary test” in his novels—or at least that’s what a Wired.com journalist wrote after reading it on this Wikipedia page. (See how it works?)
Rather than planting multiple versions of his fake quotes, Fitzgerald stuck them in one high profile place and waited to see who’d take the bait. He didn’t have to wait long. I call the result of this experiment the Wikiback Effect. (Feel free to come up with your own catchy name. First person to see their term end up with its own Wikipedia entry wins.)
The Wikiback Effect is when errors contained in Wikipedia entries serve to expose the laziness and fallibility of professional journalists. Basically, if you’re a journalist and you crib from Wikipedia, it will get you back.
The Wikiback Effect is equally good at exposing hypocrisy, because some journalists love to chastise Wikipedia for its inaccuracies (often while making their own errors in the process). If nothing else, Wikipedia has become a great tool for highlighting subpar reporting.
The Wikiback Effect also occurred in February when someone added a name to the already lengthy moniker listed in the Wikipedia entry of the incoming German finance minister. The result was that the extra long name made it into scores of media reports. This too was something of an experiment, though not for course credit. The hoaxster in question later wrote a commentary for a German media site:
I asked myself if anyone would notice if I simply added one more entry to the long list of names. It turns out that no one noticed, and scores of online media, newspapers and television stations used my invention without verifying it.
One interesting side note is that The Guardian’s reader’s editor noted that Wikipedia editors exercised more skepticism about Fitzgerald’s fake quotes than the professional journalists:
Wikipedia editors were more skeptical about the unsourced quote. They deleted it twice on 30 March and when Fitzgerald added it the second time it lasted only six minutes on the page. His third attempt was more successful - the quote stayed on the site for around 25 hours before it was spotted and removed again.The rule for using Wikipedia as a source is simple: it’s okay to read an entry for background, but it’s unacceptable to cite a Wikipedia entry as fact. Follow the links to external sources and confirm any facts with multiple sources. It’s a mantra that’s repeated over and over again, yet journalists, while often condemning the inaccuracies contained within the site, still turn to Wikipedia as a quick way to churn out an article.
This latest example also exposes another flaw inside newsrooms: most papers were unaware that they had used fake quotes until Fitzgerald himself contacted them to say a correction was necessary.
Give the kid an A.
Correction of the Week
“A week-long series of World factfile booklets appeared with the Guardian from 18 April to 25 April. They contained some non-facts.
“New Zealand’s prime minister should have been listed as John Key, not Helen Clark, his predecessor (23 April, page 15). Jerusalem was referred to as Israel’s de facto capital instead of as a disputed city claimed as capital by both Israelis and Palestinians (Sources panel, page 2, daily).
“Jamaica’s “living national icons” included the late Bob Marley (21 April, page 31). Bulgaria’s highest point, Musala peak, was listed under its defunct and short-lived name, Stalin peak (18 April, page 29). Poland was partitioned in the 1700s, not the 17th century (23 April, page 29). A map of Turkey included northern Cyprus, which Turkey occupies but does not claim (25 April, page 14).
- 1
- 2





This happened with John Madden's wikipedia entry too. Somebody wrote bogus information about him starting his coaching career at Buffalo State College during the early 1960s.
http://www.buffalonews.com/entertainment/story/647457.html
FWIW am a Buffalo State grad, and the school didn't have a football program until the early 1980s.
Posted by Hardrada on Fri 8 May 2009 at 06:52 PM
I'm a volunteer press contact for Wikimedia in the UK, so I talk to a lot of journalists. I think every media person I've spoken to in the last four years uses Wikipedia as their handy universal backgrounder.
The thing is, of course, that journalism can reasonably be described as how to process good-but-unreliable sources. So journalists *should* be able to cope with Wikipedia just fine - scepticism should come with the job.
Reference loops - where a Wikipedia article references a news story and it turns out the news story got the detail from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article - also happen. Slightly red faces all around and a note on the talk page :-)
Like journalists, Wikipedia editors are highly imperfect and know it, and we're all just doing our best to do something worth doing.
Posted by David Gerard on Sat 9 May 2009 at 07:39 AM
You rightly criticse journalists for their sloppy reliance on Wikipedia, but your post would be slightly more credible if it did not contain a basic factual error itself. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the German "finance" minister you refer to for his part in a Wikipedia hoax, is in fact the minister of the economy. Where do you check your facts? Evidently not Wikipedia - their entry at least has his job description right...
Posted by TB on Sun 10 May 2009 at 03:45 PM
Yes, TB -- a truly damaging objection. Surely, describing the German minister of the economy as minister of finance is a deeply misleading and treacherous equivocation. I assume your meticulous fact-checking did not overlook Webster's (or any other dictionary's) definitions of finance (the system that includes the circulation of money, the granting of credit, the making of investments, and the provision of banking facilities) and economy (the structure of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services). Although, as I write this, the two terms actually seem to be synonymous. That's odd. I should do some more fact-checking: let's take a look at Wikipedia: "A minister of finance (also called financial affairs, the treasury, the economy, or economic affairs)..." Well, this is indeed troubling. No source is attached to this line in the entry, so I guess I'll remain just as confused as you seem to be, TB.
Posted by BNE on Tue 12 May 2009 at 01:17 AM
BNE - Well done for providing me with a dictionary definition of finance. I never knew. The point is that Germany, like myriad other countries, actually has a minister of finance (Peer Steinbrueck) as well as a minister for the economy (Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg). Mixing them up is the same as confusing the US commerce secretary with the secretary of the treasury. It's hardly a big deal, but worth correcting in a post about factual errors and unreliable sourcing.
Posted by TB on Tue 12 May 2009 at 07:32 AM
On October 9, 2008, and the days leading up to it, every business reporter on the networks reported that it was the one-year anniversary of the first time in history that the DOW broke the 14,000 mark. This, after all, was easily checked on Wikipedia, which was saying at the time that it broke 14,000 for the first time on October 9, 2007..
The DOW actually broke 14,000 for the first time almost three months earlier, on July, 19, 2007. This fact could have easily been checked--at the original sources--by the business reporters or their support staff without ever leaving their browser-windows.
I'm sure the ANONYMOUS contributors to Wikipedia didn't intentionally get it wrong. Sometimes they just get distracted, for example, when their moms call them down for dinner.
Posted by Stosh on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 12:19 PM
I am not surprised this works, after all for it to be correct requires that someone verify the information which is far from trivial. Especially with a quote it can be hard to track down exactly whether the quote was said or not, if they had changed a hard fact like his birthdate I would imagine it would have been reverted much more quickly. deer repellent
Posted by Mat on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 04:29 AM