Can I complain about a coworker for a minute?

maratea

I'm astounded by the level of stupidity from the guy. So a new book we are publishing has factual elements even though the book is fictional. So I am checking facts for the book and I've started to notice many are wrong. So I ask the editor where he got all of this information, and he says, "Oh it's a very reputable source."
And of course I ask what the source is. "Wikipedia." Um, what? Yes that is the most factual and trustworthy site on the Internet. When I try to tell him it's wrong and Wikipedia is not, in fact, a good source, he actually said "Well I'm the editor so I get to make the calls." Ok, but facts are facts. But not really. So if any of you ever read this book, I'm sorry.

Y I Oughta

Oh no. I don't get how people don't understand that it is publicly written and other people screw it up all the time. Good luck fact checking for someone that doesn't want actual facts.

ricksang

WTF? Is he serious. Does he not know anyone can submit to Wiki?

anna.oskar

You should right a blurb on wikipedia.  So then you can wiki "wikipedia" and have it say "This is not considered a legitimate and reliable source."

SarahPLiz

What a dumbass!

allisong23

Seriously?

I had a class once with a major paper and presentation that required at least 3 academic sources (it was a Philosophy of Religion class). One guy used Wikipedia, dictionary.com and the Bible. No jokes.

[Deleted User]

As an author, that hurts my writing soul. I can't imagine trying to publish something with blatantly wrong facts. And it kind of pisses me off that some guy who used stupid Wiki pages gets accepted by a publishing company.

JenGin74

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_can-complain-coworker-minute?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:b7495d7d-22b2-4be1-ad63-eb01f54bd6afPost:0e23f5ff-1939-45a4-8180-89142c336f62">Re: Can I complain about a coworker for a minute?</a>:
[QUOTE]You should right a blurb on wikipedia.  So then you can wiki "wikipedia" and have it say "This is not considered a legitimate and reliable source."
Posted by anna.oskar[/QUOTE]

I vote for this

maratea

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_can-complain-coworker-minute?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:b7495d7d-22b2-4be1-ad63-eb01f54bd6afPost:0e23f5ff-1939-45a4-8180-89142c336f62">Re: Can I complain about a coworker for a minute?</a>:
[QUOTE]You should right a blurb on wikipedia.  So then you can wiki "wikipedia" and have it say "This is not considered a legitimate and reliable source."
Posted by anna.oskar[/QUOTE]

Ha! This is awesome.

I wanted to show him the article on Wikipedia about H's hometown. Just to be an ass, I wrote "H's stepdad is king of North Manchester" in the middle of the population information.

TheCranberry

This should be a firable offense.  I mean, really.  He crazy!

anna.oskar

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_can-complain-coworker-minute?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:b7495d7d-22b2-4be1-ad63-eb01f54bd6afPost:d47cef50-9a89-4dab-8d76-1d2bc25ebe4a">Re: Can I complain about a coworker for a minute?</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Can I complain about a coworker for a minute? : I vote for this
Posted by JenGin74[/QUOTE]

I went to the wikipedia wiki and it states "As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it.<sup class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#cite_note-103"><span>[</span>104<span>]</span></a></sup> Concerns have been raised regarding the lack of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability" title="Accountability">accountability</a> that results from users' anonymity,<sup class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#cite_note-WikipediaWatch-104"><span>[</span>105<span>]</span></a></sup> the insertion of spurious information,<sup class="reference"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#cite_note-105"><span>[</span>106<span>]</span></a></sup> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism" title="Vandalism">vandalism</a>, and similar problems."

DodgersBride

That sucks. I truly hope no reads the book if it's going to be filled wrong facts.

maratea

Unfortunately, he's been with the company as a freelance editor for many years, and I guess no one's made a stink about his dumbness before. But I'll be damned if I'm going to have my name on a book that's wrong.

ohwhynot

Whoa.  That is completely ridiculous. 

RecoveringActor

Wow.  That's just... wow.  Remind me to have YOU be my editor when I finally do get that novel finished. lol.

LessThanZero

Ugh, that's ridiculous mara. I'd be pissed off too.

When it comes out, you could always get yourself an Amazon account and trash the hell out of it in the reviews.

HobokensFury

I have a professor who used to call it Wrongopidea.  People need to understand Wikipedia is no a scholarly source and should not be referenced.