Harry Shannon
My wife Eileen and I were watching an English Premier League football (soccer) match the other day. Liverpool were leading Crystal Palace 2-1 late in the game. Palace were pressing hard for a tying goal and looking quite likely to score. But Liverpool managed an attack and were awarded a penalty. (For those who don’t know, a penalty kick has a high probability of scoring, and a 3-1 lead with little time left would mean an almost certain victory for Liverpool.)
I thought the penalty decision was badly wrong. The various commentators agreed. But it stood, and Liverpool duly scored and went on to win the game. Eileen has often wondered about the potential for corruption of referees, given the high financial stakes involved. So she looked up the Wikipedia entry for the referee, Kevin Friend.
Friend, it stated, was a Liverpool fan and a Liverpool season ticket holder. Not surprisingly, Eileen immediately said he shouldn’t have been in charge of the game. I was suspicious; surely the people who run the League wouldn’t have let that happen. I scrolled to the bottom of the entry; it had last been edited just a few minutes before (15:56 UTC). Clearly someone angry at Friend had inserted fake information.
In fairness to Wikipedia, this sentence was removed quickly. I looked again soon after, and the entry edited just 10 minutes later at 16:06 UTC reported – with proper citation – that he is a supporter of another team, Leicester City.
So what to conclude? On the one hand, Wikipedia’s process can let false information get posted. On the other hand, at least in this case, it was dealt with promptly. But if you read Wikipedia at the wrong time, you can be badly misled.
Disclosure: I am a fan of Manchester United, bitter rivals of Liverpool. But of course this could not possibly have influenced my judgement on the penalty decision!