4 ms·

It should be noted that in the Discovery Channel broadcast, the picture of the Florida Nathaniel White was shown only very briefly—long enough to recognize the

by akolbe 5y ago

It should be noted that in the Discovery Channel broadcast, the picture of the Florida Nathaniel White was shown only very briefly—long enough to recognize the man if you knew him well, but probably not long enough to memorize his face if you didn't. So in a sense the Wikipedia page was possibly more harmful to him than the original TV content, bearing in mind that thousands of people looked Nathaniel White up on Wikipedia each time the program aired. Overall, more than 125,000 people viewed the Wikipedia article while it showed the wrong image. The spikes correspond to days when the program aired: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2018-05-28&end=2020-09-04&pages=Nathaniel_White https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&pl...

akolbe 5y ago
During the past few days, the Google Knowledge Graph panel shown in searches for Nathanial White serial killer seems to have been cleaned up. While a week ago it showed multiple instances of the wrong picture, today it only shows a single picture of the actual perpetrator being arrested. The same is not true for image searches, however, which continue to be completely dominated by pictures of the Florida man who's completely innocent of these crimes.
daanlo 5y ago
I am sure that the wikipedia entry was very harmful. E.g. I regularly google the name of people that I will have a meeting with (as preparation) or trying to find the linkedin profile. I am sure many HR departments do this as well. In this case it would have been something like: 1) google name 2) oh. The applicant has the same name as a serial killer 3) click on wikipedia article 4) OMG 5) the applicant being significantly less likely to receive an offer
- capableweb 5y ago
  > In this case it would have been something like: 1) google name 2) oh. The applicant has the same name as a serial killer 3) click on wikipedia article 4) OMG 5) the applicant being significantly less likely to receive an offer I'd follow the same process if it was a high-value hire. But in this process, if I'd discover that it seems to be a serial killer, I think I would at least reach out and ask if this is the same person, even if the pictures seems to match. Seems unlikely that a known serial killer would apply to any jobs I usually offer, so making sure it's the same person is surely something you'd do first.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Your plan would be to call up someone to ask whether or not they are a serial killer? Or do you mean to check their references? Because that could do even more damage to this person’s reputation. Imagine calling up this guy’s top references, asking them all if the dude they know is a serial killer. They go and look up the wiki article, and now may or may not have a giant question mark in their head as well.
    - em-bee 5y ago
      i would ask for a formal background check to verify what he says
      - dylan604 5y ago
        on an applicant? really? if you were headhunting and this person really fit the bill for a key role, maybe.
    - mousepilot 5y ago
      haha yeah, I'm not going to "reach out" to a serial killer unless I have 50 layers of anonymous proxies to "reach out" through.
- fortran77 5y ago
  Exactly. This is already a serious problem without Wikipedia giving wrong information a stamp of credibility. There's a man with the exact same name as mine (not a common one) and the exact same age who is a disbarred attorney in Arizona. More than once I've been asked by a prospective client if I ever was an attorney even though it's not on my C.V. (I would love to find a way to put these wanna-be Sherlock Holmeses who don't know how to google in their places!) Imagine if I had a Wikipedia page and the names got conflated. I'd never be able to unwind that.
jefftk 5y ago
While in the TV broadcast the picture was shown only briefly, it sounds like they also published an article online, which was the Wikipedia editor's source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion#Image_sourcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
maxerickson 5y ago
It seems an appropriate remedy for Discovery would include frequent airing of programming making it clear what the killer looked like, and perhaps covering similar media mistakes (with an eye towards showing the correct individuals over and over, never showing the misidentified people). Playing it a lot would make it more likely that the people that saw the misinformation would see the correction.

by akolbe 5y ago

akolbe 5y ago

During the past few days, the Google Knowledge Graph panel shown in searches for Nathanial White serial killer seems to have been cleaned up. While a week ago it showed multiple instances of the wrong picture, today it only shows a single picture of the actual perpetrator being arrested. The same is not true for image searches, however, which continue to be completely dominated by pictures of the Florida man who's completely innocent of these crimes.

daanlo 5y ago

I am sure that the wikipedia entry was very harmful. E.g. I regularly google the name of people that I will have a meeting with (as preparation) or trying to find the linkedin profile. I am sure many HR departments do this as well. In this case it would have been something like: 1) google name 2) oh. The applicant has the same name as a serial killer 3) click on wikipedia article 4) OMG 5) the applicant being significantly less likely to receive an offer

capableweb 5y ago
> In this case it would have been something like: 1) google name 2) oh. The applicant has the same name as a serial killer 3) click on wikipedia article 4) OMG 5) the applicant being significantly less likely to receive an offer I'd follow the same process if it was a high-value hire. But in this process, if I'd discover that it seems to be a serial killer, I think I would at least reach out and ask if this is the same person, even if the pictures seems to match. Seems unlikely that a known serial killer would apply to any jobs I usually offer, so making sure it's the same person is surely something you'd do first.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Your plan would be to call up someone to ask whether or not they are a serial killer? Or do you mean to check their references? Because that could do even more damage to this person’s reputation. Imagine calling up this guy’s top references, asking them all if the dude they know is a serial killer. They go and look up the wiki article, and now may or may not have a giant question mark in their head as well.
  - em-bee 5y ago
    i would ask for a formal background check to verify what he says
    - dylan604 5y ago
      on an applicant? really? if you were headhunting and this person really fit the bill for a key role, maybe.
  - mousepilot 5y ago
    haha yeah, I'm not going to "reach out" to a serial killer unless I have 50 layers of anonymous proxies to "reach out" through.
fortran77 5y ago
Exactly. This is already a serious problem without Wikipedia giving wrong information a stamp of credibility. There's a man with the exact same name as mine (not a common one) and the exact same age who is a disbarred attorney in Arizona. More than once I've been asked by a prospective client if I ever was an attorney even though it's not on my C.V. (I would love to find a way to put these wanna-be Sherlock Holmeses who don't know how to google in their places!) Imagine if I had a Wikipedia page and the names got conflated. I'd never be able to unwind that.

jefftk 5y ago

While in the TV broadcast the picture was shown only briefly, it sounds like they also published an article online, which was the Wikipedia editor's source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion#Image_sourcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

maxerickson 5y ago

It seems an appropriate remedy for Discovery would include frequent airing of programming making it clear what the killer looked like, and perhaps covering similar media mistakes (with an eye towards showing the correct individuals over and over, never showing the misidentified people). Playing it a lot would make it more likely that the people that saw the misinformation would see the correction.