You’ve got a name and website, in my case…That’s better than talking to a bunch of Wikipedia usernames. If you’re looking for an introduction to Tarantino, then why don’t you just ask?

http://digidave.posterous.com/tweets-from-jabermas

Alas…. I wished it were true.

I know that this is a site for reporters, but there should be some equivalent morals for readers, also…

Something like:

If the site you are looking at has more screen real estate devoted to ads than stories, or if you can’t tell the difference, consider its motivation in reporting controversial stuff just to get page views.

If the objective of the author or the venue is to make money from ads, then it doesn’t matter if the story is true or not – all that matters is that people talk about it. In fact, a story that’s not true can have more value if it generates controversy (and ad views) than a true but un-controversial story.

Of course, given the nature of the post, this becomes a fun game to play:

How do I know your version is correct?

You back up your assertions with links, and the first takes us to the Wikipedia Review forum, but is that where the action took place, or where the action was celebrated? And then more forum members weigh in with useful puzzle pieces that ended up in the Valleywag post.

So as an outsider, Wikipedia-wise, I’m left to a) trust that you’re a knowledgeable source, b) trust that Tarantino’s narrative is correct, and c) opt to figure it out, if I want to, by communicating on Wikipedia with the folks on this discussion page, right?

What’s the most likely track for the generalized average journalist to take, and what are the tools that would make it easier to cut out some of the steps in that track?

Fun game…

It was one contributor who put the pieces of the puzzle together, not a group of editors. One person with the skills, the intelligence and a critical mind can go much more than the “wisdom of the crowd”.

The Stefan de Rothschild business pales in comparison to another recent incident, involving fictional “cast director “Lee Dennison” : http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/

In the case of clearly-not-Habermas, it was a very social exercise. Someone wrote a blog post. Someone else recognized a hole in the story and commented. Someone else did the legwork of picking up the phone. If that community of commenters didn’t exist, nothing happens.

But if there were 2,000 comments, technology might get important.