Wikipedia Tells Author He's Not A Credible Source On His Novel

[BG45]

An Open Letter in the New Yorker from [url="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html"]author Philip Roth. [/url]

Someone posted an interpretation of what inspired his novel "The Human Strain" on Wikipedia, which he states is totally wrong. However, in appealing to the admins, he was told he's not a credible enough source under their guidelines to change the entry (in an encyclopedia where anyone can edit anything).

[tinytherese]

Silly people gonna be silly.

[arfink]

1. Make a new wikipedia account under a pseudonym
2. Start gigantic flame war in the chat board about the topic
3. ???
4. PROFIT

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1347149349' post='2480390']
1. Make a new wikipedia account under a pseudonym
2. Start gigantic flame war in the chat board about the topic
3. ???
4. PROFIT
[/quote]

Good luck backtracing him; he is behind seven proxies!

[BG45]

Here I just thought we could cite the New Yorker piece now, it's still the author, but it was published by someone else's company.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Hence why the university where I got my BS gave you an automatic F if you cited wiki for anything

[BG45]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347151884' post='2480398']
Hence why the university where I got my BS gave you an automatic F if you cited wiki for anything
[/quote]

Ditto. Though I was visiting Harvard once and a book on how to cite Wikipedia was prominently displayed in their bookstore.

[Era Might]

There's lots of hypothetical reasons an author might not be a good source on his own work. He might have an agenda (e.g., shaping his legacy or the interpretation of history). He might misremember. He might not be aware of unconscious influences. I have no idea if any of these cases apply to this case, but the author is not the final authority on his own work.

[Groo the Wanderer]

I guess that goes for the Bible too, eh Luther?

[emmaberry]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1347153297' post='2480406']
There's lots of hypothetical reasons an author might not be a good source on his own work. He might have an agenda (e.g., shaping his legacy or the interpretation of history). He might misremember. He might not be aware of unconscious influences. I have no idea if any of these cases apply to this case, but the author is not the final authority on his own work.
[/quote]

While I agree with this, if the OP is true in stating that the author wanted to correct the false 'inspiritation' for the novel, he should be able to do that... Unless wiki had the false interpretation under a category of 'public reception' or 'public views' or something similar.

If wiki was trying to relay correct information on the novel's inspiration, the author's word trumps anyone else's, because theirs is mere speculation.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347151884' post='2480398']
Hence why the university where I got my BS gave you an automatic F if you cited wiki for anything
[/quote]

Wikipedia is perfectly good for research, as long as you follow the citations.

[Era Might]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1347163479' post='2480467']
While I agree with this, if the OP is true in stating that the author wanted to correct the false 'inspiritation' for the novel, he should be able to do that... Unless wiki had the false interpretation under a category of 'public reception' or 'public views' or something similar.

If wiki was trying to relay correct information on the novel's inspiration, the author's word trumps anyone else's, because theirs is mere speculation.
[/quote]
As I understand Wikipedia, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Nobody's "word" is sufficient by itself unless you can document it. I guess it's not perfect, but it works for what Wikipedia does.

[cmaD2006]

I guess now Wikipedia can quote what the author said in the New Yorker!

[Era Might]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1347164318' post='2480476']
I guess now Wikipedia can quote what the author said in the New Yorker!
[/quote]
Probably.

[emmaberry]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1347163946' post='2480473']
As I understand Wikipedia, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Nobody's "word" is sufficient by itself unless you can document it. I guess it's not perfect, but it works for what Wikipedia does.
[/quote]

That makes sense, but then wiki must be run by idiots (doh). How can someone besides the author prove a novel's inspiration?

For that matter, how can an author even prove this?

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1347151884' post='2480398']
Hence why the university where I got my BS gave you an automatic F if you cited wiki for anything
[/quote]

Sounds like a responsible university.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1347165045' post='2480490']
For that matter, how can an author even prove this?
[/quote]

That's just the issue, isn't it?

[emmaberry]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1347166588' post='2480499']
That's just the issue, isn't it?
[/quote]

Sounds like Wiki needs to change its standards so that on 'creative projects' the artist/writer/etc can actually give some input, just because, oh I don't know, they made the thing.

If I were the author, I'd write a new novel about a Wikipedia conspiracy/scandal. Good thing I'm not a writer.