PDA

View Full Version : Never Completely Trust Wikipedia



donroc
02-15-2009, 07:42 PM
My publisher, who is also a graphic artist, created the cover for Rocamora by combining-morphing several 17th century portraits. I was surfing and found this recent Wiki entry, which used our cover for the portrait of the subject below.

Jerónimo de Rocamora y Desprats de Thomás - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jer%C3%B3nimo_de_Rocamora_y_Desprats)

Don Allen
02-15-2009, 07:46 PM
Wow!,,, how do you feel about that????

Bartholomew
02-15-2009, 07:54 PM
Me confusa. ¿Cuál es el problema?

Edit

Nvm. I didn't follow the link before. That's funny!

donroc
02-15-2009, 07:57 PM
No credit for the publisher; worst of all, no link to my novel when you click on the portrait. :cry:

Bartholomew
02-15-2009, 07:58 PM
Complain to an editor. :p

donroc
02-15-2009, 07:59 PM
Wow!,,, how do you feel about that????

Amused. I guess the author of the article used a search spider that cobwebbed all information without checking. My publisher even included a female portrait in the morphing.

tehuti88
02-15-2009, 08:00 PM
I'm pretty sure that American Wikipedia doesn't allow use of such images without permission or certain guidelines; it seems this would be similar, especially since it isn't even an authentic likeness. Can't you contact them to get it removed or some such?

donroc
02-15-2009, 08:02 PM
I have alerted my publisher, who will do what she can.

Bartholomew
02-15-2009, 08:04 PM
I added it to the discussion page.

Mad Queen
02-15-2009, 08:06 PM
Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. Just click 'Editar' and remove what you want.

Don Allen
02-15-2009, 08:06 PM
Amused. I guess the author of the article used a search spider that cobwebbed all information without checking. My publisher even included a female portrait in the morphing.



In a way its a piss-off but in a way its kinda flattering, except that you should get credit for the pic.

Bartholomew
02-15-2009, 08:20 PM
Amused. I guess the author of the article used a search spider that cobwebbed all information without checking. My publisher even included a female portrait in the morphing.

It is more likely that they own or have read your book, and assumed the portrait was of the Marqués de Rafal.

Ms Hollands
02-15-2009, 08:24 PM
Yeah, I think you can not only request that WikiP remove the image (or credit your publisher if you prefer) but you can also find out who submitted the image. Looks like it was someone called Javier Baeza Valero...

Brutal Mustang
02-15-2009, 08:31 PM
Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. Just click 'Editar' and remove what you want.

This has always bothered me. Seems like any bored punk can replace a factual article with garbage.

Williebee
02-15-2009, 08:48 PM
This has always bothered me. Seems like any bored punk can replace a factual article with garbage.


I'm pretty sure that American Wikipedia doesn't allow use of such images without permission or certain guidelines;

As a matter of course, Wikipedia allows whatever doesn't get questioned.

In an ideal environment, Wikipedia, regardless of the language, is great because it allows for global input on fact checking and addition.

The world we live in is, however, not an ideal environment.

The history professor I'm married to starts every semester with:
"Repeat after me: Wikipedia is not a primary source."

Doesn't mean it isn't a good "jumping off" point for your research, but follow the links, follow the credits, and check the sources.

Heck, Don, I'd just edit to add the facts of the image, and a promo and link to buy the book! :)

donroc
02-15-2009, 09:12 PM
As a matter of course, Wikipedia allows whatever doesn't get questioned.

In an ideal environment, Wikipedia, regardless of the language, is great because it allows for global input on fact checking and addition.

The world we live in is, however, not an ideal environment.

The history professor I'm married to starts every semester with:
"Repeat after me: Wikipedia is not a primary source."

Doesn't mean it isn't a good "jumping off" point for your research, but follow the links, follow the credits, and check the sources.

Heck, Don, I'd just edit to add the facts of the image, and a promo and link to buy the book! :)

Now you're talking!

DamaNegra
02-15-2009, 11:53 PM
I'll edit for you :) since the page is in Spanish. I'll add your book as the source.

ETA: Done. Waiting for the change to be approved...

Willowmound
02-16-2009, 12:15 AM
Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. Just click 'Editar' and remove what you want.

That's what I was going to say.

And I'll ad this: Whenever you come across something you know is wrong in a Wikipedia article, for the love of god, fix it! That's the wiki point.


This has always bothered me. Seems like any bored punk can replace a factual article with garbage.

cooeedownunder
02-16-2009, 12:26 AM
I think haggis has the right idea :)

virtue_summer
02-16-2009, 02:23 AM
I've never completely trusted Wikipedia anyway. It's NOT a scholarly source and I take everything it says with a grain of salt, like Williebee said following the links to see where they got the information, etc. I would never quote for truth something I had read on Wikipedia and nowhere else. In my opinion, Wikipedia is given way too much credit. Seriously, anyone can post anything they want, factual or not. That is not the definition of a dependable source.

Mac H.
02-16-2009, 03:19 AM
I hope the professor also drums in that Encyclopedia Britannica, etc, are also not primary sources !

There was an interesting study a while ago comparing the accuracy of various encyclopedias. The study was published in the prestigious journal 'Nature'. (Britannica complained, but Nature stands by the article)

Basically Wikipedia had basically the same number of inaccuracies as Encyclopedia Britannica. What was really worrying, however, was that they found an average of 2-3 errors per encyclopedia entry ... and that included the one that people trust.

The great thing about Wiki is that people KNOW it is inaccurate. People know to check the information. Pity the poor people using Encyclopedia Britannica who thought they didn't need to check there information ! (In a study of 50 articles, four MAJOR errors and 123 minor errors were found)

Mac

DamaNegra
02-16-2009, 04:24 AM
Returning to the OP, it's done. It reads as follows:
Descripción: Español: Foto del primer Marqués de Rafal
Fuente: Arte original creada para el libro Rocamora de Donald Michael Platt.
Fecha: 8 de enero de 2009
Autor: desconocido
Permiso: ninguno, todavía

Or, in English:
Description: Spanish. Picture of the first Marquee of Rafal
Source: Original art created for the book Rocamora by Donald Michael Platt
Date: January 8, 2009
Author: unknown
Permission: none, yet


Is that okay? Or shall I change something else?

donroc
02-16-2009, 04:38 AM
Returning to the OP, it's done. It reads as follows:
Descripción: Español: Foto del primer Marqués de Rafal
Fuente: Arte original creada para el libro Rocamora de Donald Michael Platt.
Fecha: 8 de enero de 2009
Autor: desconocido
Permiso: ninguno, todavía

Or, in English:
Description: Spanish. Picture of the first Marquee of Rafal
Source: Original art created for the book Rocamora by Donald Michael Platt
Date: January 8, 2009
Author: unknown
Permission: none, yet


Is that okay? Or shall I change something else?

Many thanks.

It is a made-up portrait of my MC Vicente de Rocamora, not Jerónimo. If you can, please credit the creator of the "portrait" my publisher, Pamela Marin-Kingsley

DamaNegra
02-16-2009, 04:42 AM
Was Vicente de Rocamora a real historical character? Or a made-up one?

ETA: The changes have been added and will appear at the site at any moment. I just need that one last detail for the entry on the picture to be completed.

Wayne K
02-16-2009, 05:00 AM
This has always bothered me. Seems like any bored punk can replace a factual article with garbage.

I'm actually shocked that they let people do that for exactly that reason. There are a lot of bored punks out there.

donroc
02-16-2009, 05:49 AM
Was Vicente de Rocamora a real historical character? Or a made-up one?

ETA: The changes have been added and will appear at the site at any moment. I just need that one last detail for the entry on the picture to be completed.

Vicente de Rocamora, 1601-1684, was real. He was the confessor and spirtual director for Infanta María, disappeared from Court at age 42, arrived in Amsterdam, declared himself to be Jew, went to medical school, became a physician at age 46, married a 25 year old, and sired 9 children.

donroc
02-16-2009, 05:51 AM
Dama Negra, Vicente ws only 5 years older than the teenage Infanta when he was her confessor. She honored him, showered him with gifts, and confessed often.

DamaNegra
02-16-2009, 06:43 AM
Your book actually sounds like the sort of book I'd love to read :) Any chance of Mexico distribution? If not, I'll have to wait until I've enough books to justify Amazon international shipping.


The info for the image now reads like this:
Descripción - Español: retrato ficticio de Vicente de Rocamora
Fuente - Arte original creada para el libro Rocamora de Donald Michael Platt.
Fecha - 8 de enero de 2009
Autor - Pamela Marin-Kingsley
Permiso - contactar al artista


Or:
Description - Spanish: fictional portrait of Vicente de Rocamora
Source: original art created for the book Rocamora by Donald Michael Platt
Date: January 9, 2009
Author: Pamela Marin-Kingsley
Permission - contact the artist

donroc
02-16-2009, 07:07 AM
DamaNegra, I know you would enjoy Rocamora.

Is B&N on line available in Mexico? Can your booksellers order through Ingram/Books in Print?

virtue_summer
02-16-2009, 07:23 AM
The great thing about Wiki is that people KNOW it is inaccurate. People know to check the information.

Not true. I've had many people try to convince me of things based purely on one Wikipedia entry. Many teachers and professors complain because their students trust Wikipedia implicitly and use it as their sole source of research. Just the number of entries that are in this thread where people state shock that anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry goes to show that indeed not everyone does understand how Wikipedia works, and thus that they need to double check the validity of its information.

DamaNegra
02-16-2009, 07:41 AM
DamaNegra, I know you would enjoy Rocamora.

Is B&N on line available in Mexico? Can your booksellers order through Ingram/Books in Print?

Booksellers, as a rule, are a joke around here. But nobody in this country reads, so it doesn't matter (Mexicans read, in average, 1.4 books a year. I think that's an exageration). I'll try and get it online, but shipping is kind of expensive, so I'm waiting until my list grows enough to justify it.


Also, regarding Wikipedia, I adore it. You can find articles of just about everything on it. Sure, it's not completely accurate but just now I read the article about the May 15 incident in Japan, and it gave me a nice overview of the subject, and I wasn't planning on becoming an expert, anyway. I was just curious about the subject after reading about it in Mishima's Runaway horses. (btw, I used Wikipedia to find the name of the novel in English, because I have it in Spanish)

When doing research for a school proyect, the first source I go to is Wikipedia. There, I get a list of names and key words that will help me in my research. I also visit all the sources listed and look for the reference books in my school library. If people learned to use it as the great starting point it is, instead of using it as the only source, Wikipedia wouldn't be as reviled as it is right now.

Wayne K
02-16-2009, 07:49 AM
Vicente de Rocamora, 1601-1684, was real. He was the confessor and spirtual director for Infanta María, disappeared from Court at age 42, arrived in Amsterdam, declared himself to be Jew, went to medical school, became a physician at age 46, married a 25 year old, and sired 9 children.
I was going to do all that, but I couldn't have made the grades for medical school.

Williebee
02-16-2009, 08:54 AM
ah, I figured it was just that ninth kid.

RickN
02-16-2009, 07:26 PM
Using Wikipedia as a source has been a problem for a while. There are several stories like this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html.

I homeschool my kids (one's now away at college, the other's a college-bound senior). Wikipedia was strictly forbidden to appear as a source on the papers they write for me.

Willowmound
02-16-2009, 07:28 PM
I see a lot of odd comments about Wikipedia in this thread that might not have been made if people knew what the word wiki (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wiki?r=75) meant.