 |
On 14 March 2007, the article page associated with this talk page was the target of a hoax. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history. |
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Hoax
Try to see it once my way.
Everything zen
Everything zen
I don't think so
I don't believe that Sinbad is dead
I don't believe that Sinbad is dead
Bush 3:30, 16 March 2007
It has nothing to do with pride, it's simply a matter of reporting facts. The hoax is a fact that made national news, and tring to brush it under the rug would call into question the objectivity of the project. Just my two cents: I say the hoax deserves a couple of lines, either on the Sinbad entry or as its own entry. fsu23phd 11:32, 16 March 2007 (EST)
Various
Sinbad hosted "Sinbad's Summer Soul Music Festival" during the late 90's. The festival featured live performances from an array of performers with R&B / Soul classic releases from the 70's and contemporary R&B/Pop artists of the 90's. A unique quality of this annual festival is that it took place in various Caribbean locations during consecurtve summers. Sinbad delivered clean comedy. Whether he delivered adult or G rated source material, he could do so obsenity free. He put forth a positive uplifting persona that empowered the audience to laugh at themselves, at his jokes and at outside negative forces. He was gifted at viewing his own personal life and experiences with a comedic eye. He captured that view and communicated it to the audience in his words and appearance. Was there ever a larger man in baggy, spontaneously colored bright shirts and matching baloon pants, with red hair and goat T that could look more serious and funny at the same time? Almost forgot, he could work a room with counter-attacks on hecklers and sharp aboservations of audience members. (Mike Prather)
I saw a much-matured Sinbad here in Charlotte not too long ago. I agree with the other posters, how trivial is a Maxim poll? Isn't Maxim geared to a demographic that is exactly the opposite of Sinbad, Whoopi, and Margaret in the first place? They wouldn't have seen the Music Festivals, would they?65.82.105.98 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UT
SNL
Didn't Sinbad play Black Lightning on a Saturday Night Live Skit? He showed up at Superman's funeral, but no one recognized him. Anyone care to comment?
- He did indeed, though it isn't really worth placing in this article. The script can be viewed here:http://snltranscripts.jt.org/92/92gsuperman.phtml Google is your friend. - 24.10.95.220 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- But the appearance on SNL is noteworthy, so it should be mentioned. 4.232.135.159 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, as one of the few people who read "Black Lightning" comics, it was hilarious and worth at least one line.65.82.105.98 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Experts On Comedy?
Since when did the people on and its readers become a viable source on comedy commentary?
Its like Hustler or or Sports Illustrated writers and readers being experts on comedy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.29.86 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Commentary is NPOV
This trivia piece does not adhere to WP:LIVING so I'm taking it out. It's malicious POV, so in order to stay it would have to be super-relevant, and it's just not. It's gone. — coelacan talk — 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Someone complained that I had not waited for consensus before removing this. We don't wait for consensus when it is a damaging statement on a living person. Read WP:LIVING. This is damaging, so it must be cited and highly relevant. Even if it were cited, it's not relevant. What one readers' poll of one magazine decided about Whoopi is not a notable contribution to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I considered removing the thing about his placement by them, but I decided against that. Maxim's third worst was Whoopi Goldberg who, although I'd concede she's had a downturn, won an Oscar and a Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. Their second is Margaret Cho who, even if I dislike her politics even more than I dislike Goldberg's, is quite funny. To put Sinbad in the same breath with those two is, oddly enough, the biggest honor I've heard bestowed on him. Even if the honor is unintentional I'd think I'd be quite proud of not appealing to Maxim's readers.--T. Anthony 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of removing it entirely. It's a malicious hitpiece; it's POV; it's not a notable reference, it's linkspam for Maxim. Furthermore it's not an opinion poll at all - there is nothing on the site indicating that any readers were polled (I removed that misinformation, which is definitely malicious). Worse, it doesn't even have a byline, it was written anonymously! George100 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Legal name
There is nowhere to indicate that "Sinbad" is his legal name, in accordance with WP:MOSBIO, the opening paragraph should thus read: David Atkins (born November 10 1956) better known as Sinbad, ... --Zimbabweed 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have amended this as you suggested.Manning 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Spam
As I am locked from editing this page, can someone remove the FindArticles spam hidden in the references section? Thanks. --FeldBum 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. -- Zanimum 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Attribution
If we minded our attribution rules this would not happen. If you see an unsourced death, revert it until someone provides a source that is verifiable. Dominick (TALK) 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is true, but so far as we know, no admin saw this edit until it was reverted. -- Zanimum 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Summary of events concerning the hoax
Here are the facts, as obtained from the article's edit history:
- at 20:36, 14 March 2007, the postulated death of Sinbad was first inserted (see edit here) by an anonymous user with the IP address 167.7.17.3. The IP belongs to a user on the xx.sc.us ___domain (South Carolina government).
- by 21:48, 14 March 2007, the erroneous news of his death was partially removed by another anonymous user, and
- by 21:54, 14 March 2007, the truthfulness had been completely restored again by another anonymous user.
- In the subsequent 36 hours, the article was edited more than a hundred times by many different users, including many vandals and was subsequently protected from editing at 17:48, 15 March 2007.
- by March 16, the hoax had been reported by more than 200 news sources in several countries. [1]
- On the morning of March 16, the Drudge Report linked to the Associated Press article as "WIKIPEDIA Falsely Reports Sinbad's Death..." 5Q5 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify:
- Exactly when did the story first hit the news? How long was that after the initial vandalism? - What was the state of the article when the news was first hit?
Proud/damage
Though the hoax and the vandalism is shameful, I think Wikipedia can be proud of eliminating the error so soon. Jens Nielsen 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, 72 minutes is still not fast enough. I hope all the people who watch the edits with a special tool tell it to highlight articles in the category Category:Living people, and pay extra special attention to unsourced edits announcing someone's death.
- That said, even if it had only been on the site for 1 minute, all it takes is one idiot who posts a link to the revision and a screenshot, and sits back to watch the carnage. Must be a slow news day, though, otherwise I don't see why it would be friggin' international news that someone vandalized a page at Wikipedia. 194.151.6.70 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia can be proud of eliminating the error so soon. If the error had been corrected before being noticed by the news media, maybe we could be satisfied (not proud, just satisfied) with that. But the news coverage of this incident is likely to damage Wikipedia's reputation. --Metropolitan90 14:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's just another day on Wikipedia. People have either decided for us or against us, one more vandalised article isn't going to hurt. -- Zanimum 15:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia can be proud of eliminating the error so soon. If the error had been corrected before being noticed by the news media, maybe we could be satisfied (not proud, just satisfied) with that. But the news coverage of this incident is likely to damage Wikipedia's reputation. --Metropolitan90 14:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- That said, even if it had only been on the site for 1 minute, all it takes is one idiot who posts a link to the revision and a screenshot, and sits back to watch the carnage. Must be a slow news day, though, otherwise I don't see why it would be friggin' international news that someone vandalized a page at Wikipedia. 194.151.6.70 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that we can be proud of this coming so soon on the heels of Essjay. It appears that "anyone" HAS decided that they "CAN edit". I think Wikipedia will degenerate into either a full-tilt loonie bin like many newsgroups, or will be forced to have all contributors known, checked, and double-checked. The word is out online, you can do anything on Wikipedia and the fastest they'll get around to fixing it is 72 minutes. That's nearly 5X the fame Andy Warhol said the little buggers would have. Nirigihimu 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- These types of issues are extremely damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. I saw a news feature the other day talking about how some college professors are not letting their students use Wikipedia as a source because they feel it is not reliable. --speedoflight | talk to me 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- 72 minutes not fast enough? How often do you check this article? (It's the first time in 4 years I've been here.) I'm quite satisfied with the response time. And as for college professors not letting students use Wikipedia as a source - they are absolutely right! There would have been severe consequences to my grade had I used an encyclopedia of any kind as a source for my college papers. Go to the references from Wikipedia, read them, and cite them directly. -- ke4roh 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Section About the Hoax should be included in the article
Given that this hoax will be noted as one of Wikipedia's worst moments, we should probably include a section in the article about it due to the intense media attention regarding this hoax. Jonyyeh 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- my first instinct is no, because it will encourage more vandalism. however, that would be censorship. also, considering the amount of recent change patrol people, 72 minutes, and the news coverage, it is significant in the fact that out of the 1000s of vandalisms per day, this one had quite an effect. the_undertow talk 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that it big enough news-wise to be put into the article. Jordan 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The John Seigenthaler, Sr. article mentions the wikipedia controversy involving him. Why not this one? Dr. Morbius 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see news coverage about Wikipedia vandalism almost every month on Google Technology News. This isn't anything special, just another black eye for Wikipedia. SeLfkiLL 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The John Seigenthaler, Sr. article mentions the wikipedia controversy involving him. Why not this one? Dr. Morbius 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that it big enough news-wise to be put into the article. Jordan 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
US Goverment?
Strange that it was a xx.sc.us ___domain, someone at South Carolina government too much time on their hands? Dominick (TALK) 14:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify. From this [2] We can see this info:
- NetRange: 167.7.0.0 - 167.7.255.255
- NetName: SCAROLINA-GOV
- NetType: Direct Assignment
- NameServer: NS1.NET.STATE.SC.US
So it was someone who had access to the state network in South Carolina. The story should be someone is using SC resources to post false information about Sinbad. Of course many don't understand that Wikipedia is a place where people can post information about the world in an encyclopedia format, not that Wikipedia posts information about the world. I can even find stories about a Nazi moon base and it will indeed be listed. Why, because it has sources. We failed because editors did not insist on a published source for the death. Dominick (TALK) 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cottageville, South Carolina appears to be the exact source (see the WhoIS). With only 700 residents I bet it won't be hard to find out who works for the Government.--CastAStone|(talk) 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The town doesn't have a website, but Colleton County does. I'm emailing the Economic Development department as Wikinews, to ask them. -- Zanimum 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- They might need to check the post office first. There's a little bit of federal government that's in every town.--CastAStone|(talk) 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Very unlikely to be a postoffice, probably just a public computer in the local library. --Klork 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why the local library? Internet service in Ontario, Canada libraries are provided by the municipial government, and in Nova Scotia, it's run by the province. While it's possible the federal government provides the internet service for US libraries, it's highly unlikely. -- Zanimum 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I lived in South Carolina earlier this decade. Local libraries run their own internet networks in the Palmetto State, but most libraries there were able to establish them with state and federal grants. Also, they must adhere to any regulations the state and federal government may pass regarding the Internet, since they are public facilities. - --Bdj95 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted edits available
Per Jensbn's request, I've restored the deleted entries - which I initially deleted after a request to do so to stop people from viewing the incorrect entry - and moved them a subpage of this talk page. The current version redirects to the talk page, but the 9 entries which I deleted are available in the history. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a better link to the deleted edits. MisfitToys 21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
References
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Sinbad (comedian). (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
In the light of the recent issues, would someone mind adding references to his Air Force AWOL quotes and material. I have found the following http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n8_v52/ai_19448531 and http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1264/is_n7_v23/ai_12798635/pg_3. Thanks. --Ali'i 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Further: Here is at least a second-hand source for the Fresh Prince "pirate or comic" quote, although it's possible that they got that from us. More sources coming. --Ali'i 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- This would be good to use for the family stuff, and other general biographical information. --Ali'i 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is a news article about the Wikipedia hoax. NorthernThunder 21:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with the Vandals.
I don't have the authority to do anything but warn the vandals, which I will. Most of the IPs have been used before for vandalism. But there are a few problems with blocking them now.
2 of the IPs (User:12.32.91.80 and User:204.99.250.45) are from office supply stores in the Chicago area, indicating that someone went to a few stores to mess around with the pages on the demonstration computers. Another (User:167.206.128.33) is a college address in New York, meaning its likely at least somewhat dynamic, at least year to year, or another public PC. The other addresses are apparently single people, and I suggest an administrator do something about them. Consensus?--CastAStone|(talk) 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia needs to ban anonymous editors. There's just been too much of this nonsense. The latest vandalism has even been reported in the media [3] 23skidoo 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with 23skidoo, this made the Drudge Report via Breitbart [4] Arm 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree about banning anonymous users. The good 99% might not take the time to create an account. The bad 1% (e.g., vandals) would readily create bogus Hotmail/Gmail/Yahoo accounts and continue to vandalize. The end result would probably be a higher percentage of vandals than Wikipedia now has (same number of vandals, but fewer legitimate edits).
- i agree completelyT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are they Asding or Siling Vandals? And are you absolutely sure that Visigoths and Ostrogoths weren't responsible for this outrage?
- What we need is a faster system for reporting and removing vandals. Leave the anonymous accounts, but make the warning process a bit more streamlined so that vandals are removed fast. A week ago I proposed a bot to help with this issue. --D 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It would be interesting to see what the actual percentage of anons who engage in vandalism is (percent of both total anons and of total vandals). --H-ko (Talk) 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't take any effort at all to make an account on wikipedia. It's incredibly easy and doesn't even require that an activation email be sent. Vandals and IPs used by vandals should be summarily banned for some period of time. If the IP is used by many people then put up a warning message saying that that IP has been banned from editing wikipedia and the reason why. The credibility of wikipedia is diminished every time nonsense like this happens and it needs to stop. Dr. Morbius 23:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Fat Botch
The fact that Wikipedia screwed up "Sinbad's death" so horribly should be noted within this article, perhaps under pop culture.[5] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another vandalism of yet another Wikipedia page is irrelevant to the subject matter of this article. If it belongs anywhere, it would be more appropriate to refer to it in the article of criticisms of Wikipedia or some such article.--H-ko (Talk) 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- , says the Wikipedia apologist. The fact is notable and it can be cited with reputable sources, therefore there is no reason why it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- You really don't know whether H-ko is seeking to preserve the reputation of Wikipedia, or simply mistaken. Even outside of the nicey-nicey world of Wikipedia, you shouldn't launch personal attacks with so little foundation! —SlamDiego 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of the article (Mr Adkins) has publically discussed this matter,[6] which has received international attention as a story about him as well as about Wikipedia. —SlamDiego 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say it didn't belong on Wikipedia. I said it seemed more appropriate in an article about problems with Wikipedia. Hence the link to the article on criticisms of Wikipedia. Do you expect every page that gets vandalized to have a comment put on it stating that was the case? If so, practically every page here would need to have that added. --H-ko (Talk) 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The vandalization became news about Adkins. In fact, it's the first news about Adkins that I've read in a while. I expect Adkins to be covered in the article about Adkins. Is that really too much to ask? —SlamDiego 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Restoring talk page edits made by original vandal
You can find these in the history by searching through the IP user contributions...--CastAStone|(talk) 20:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did one and noted RIP. I had been told by my friend on the phone, so I updated. My entire office talked about it the rest of the day. The next day, I hadn't seen anything on tv or news or paper, so I checked wiki, and it reverted to living. Perhaps I was the first one to screw it up and cause the whole problem, or was one of many that continued it. Either way, I shall restrict my own participation to Wiki to grammar and punctuation. wiki may contact me over the issue as necessary, but I hope they (Wp) won't ban the IP. 6:11EST 16march2007---RAH
- BTW, the entry for 15:38EST 14march2007 was mine, if that helps clear any timeline issues up ---RAH
Hoax Makes Media
Sinbad isn't dead
Just his career is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.116.117 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks
Thanks to the recently posted hoax, Wikipedia has been "proven" yet again as a "unreliable source." Theophany 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is, in itself, a unreliable source. Otherwise, articles would reference other articles in Wikipedia. By the way, new comments go to the bottom. -- ReyBrujo 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Plus Wikipedia just sucks ass. --The Bede 04:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)