Talk:Eric Newton

Newton violated multiple Wikipedia policies
Just so there is some clarity about Mr. Newton's involvement in the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, he has complained about Wikipedia:


 * "They say anyone can edit it. That is not true. I couldn't."

It would have been more accurate to say he could and did edit it, but all his edits prior to that article were in violation of Wikipedia policies. His first violation involved copyright infringement. He lifted a copyrighted bio verbatim from the Freedom Forum.

The Freedom Forum bio of Seigenthaler links to his official biography on the First Amendment Center site. That site has a very clear copyright policy:


 * "Copyright the First Amendment Center. The text and images on this Web site are copyrighted and may not be reposted, republished, copied or reproduced without permission. [...] Although you cannot copy the text and repost or reproduce it elsewhere, you may link to any page on this site without asking permission."

Newton (or someone claiming to be him) then returned in December and added edits stating Newton was the anonymous editor who had violated copyright, though there was no published source for this claim. This is another Wikipedia violation, this time against the No Original Research policy. Now that he has published the January 2006 Sun-Sentinel piece quoted above, there's a verifiable source, and Newton's name can be included.

Newton and like-minded journalists are all up in arms about Wikipedia, but I am sure they've run the occasional "we regret the error" retraction. Pranks can happen at "professional" newspapers, in clear violations of their policies. Journalists and Wikipedians are not perfect, but there are policies in place to reduce pranks and errors.

Bottom line: in attempting to fix one violation, Newton violated several other Wikipedia policies, and then he complained about it in print.

Just wanted to expand here on what should be a fairly minor point in Newton's biography. Jokestress 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Newton's article about Wikipedia has expired
Per today's comment by BabuBhatt, I have linked to the abstract of the Newton article on sun-sentinel.com. Interestingly, the fact that Newton's article is no longer available free to the public exemplifies a major reason why Wikipedia was created in the first place. Some of us feel information should be available to everyone for free and indefinitely, rather than controlled by a half dozen media conglomerates. Jokestress 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced edits
I want to address the recent edit by User:63.119.246.13 on 22:59, 30 January 2006, which had this comment:


 * Phrasing important. 1) No court has convicted Newton of the crime of copyright infringement. 2) Wales deletion of history log removed the source for "unsourced edits."

Regarding #1: I'll stick an "alleged" in there regarding the copyright violation.

Regarding #2: The unsourced edits occurred in December and were the main topic of Newton's Sun-Sentinel article. User:BrokenSegue removed Newton's edits crediting himself as the editor who committed the copyright violation. Wikipedia requires sources for statements of that type, and that had not appeared in a published source where it could be verified. Hence, Newton's edits, even if first-hand reports, violated No Original Research.

Because Newton's Sun-Sentinel article reflected a lack of understanding regarding fundamental Wikipedia policies and procedures, it's important to make clear that his complaints regarding #2 were not about the deletion log in September, but about his attempt to insert unverified original research about himself in December, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Jokestress 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies debated
Below is an edited version of the commentary posted on Jan. 21 about Mr. Newton. Do you think this version explains both sides of the exchange in a more straightforward and fair way?

Discussion of the Newton case with Jokestress
Just so there is some clarity about Mr. Newton's involvement in the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, he has complained about Wikipedia:


 * "They say anyone can edit it. That is not true. I couldn't."

It would have been more accurate to say he could and did edit it, but all his edits prior to that article were in violation of Wikipedia policies. In a commentary published in the Florida Sun Sentinel newspaper, Newton questioned some of those policies.

The first involved copyright infringement. Mr. Newton admitted to lifting a bio verbatim from the Freedom Forum. He defended this by explaining the bio for the purpose of alerting Wikipedia that this was an official bio and the previous one was "bogus." It also seems unlikely that Freedom Forum would pursue a copyright action because Mr. Newton was, in fact, replacing a hoaxer's damaging statements about Seigenthaler with the official, truthful biography.

Even so, Mr. Newton completely overlooked the Wikipedia policy on copyright infringement, which clearly bans verbatim lifting from other sites. The Freedom Forum bio of Seigenthaler links to his official biography on the First Amendment Center site. That site has a very clear copyright policy:


 * "Copyright the First Amendment Center. The text and images on this Web site are copyrighted and may not be reposted, republished, copied or reproduced without permission. [...] Although you cannot copy the text and repost or reproduce it elsewhere, you may link to any page on this site without asking permission."

One thing Mr. Newton could have done, to stay within Wikipedia policy, was to summarize the official biography of Seigenthaler, even if he did so in a sentence or two, and then link to the Freedom Forum web site. That would have made exactly the same content available in a way acceptable to Wikipedia. Because he was new to Wikipedia, he did not do that. Mr. Newton suggested that all editors be forced to register their names. Such a registration process might slow down people such as Mr. Newton, first-time Wikipedia users who are trying to correct an error without understanding Wikipedia's policies.

In December, Mr. Newton returned and added edits stating that he was the person who had tried to replace the damaging bio of Seigenthaler with the "official one." Because the entry's history logs had been removed due to the controvery, however, there was no way to confirm whether his I.P. address was the same as the person who pasted the verbatim official biography over the false one. Since there was no published source for this claim, this is another Wikipedia violation, this time against the No Original Research policy. After a period of time, however, Mr. Newton's previously deleted history log entry was revived and posted in the Seigenthaler history section. In the end, Mr. Newton's claim was proven true, ie., that the history logs did contain the sourcing he referred to. Further sourcing was provided when Newton has published the January 2006 Sun-Sentinel piece quoted above, there's a verifiable source, and Newton's name can be included.

As Mr. Newton has questioned Wikipedia, so can its members question Mr. Newton. Is too much being made in mainstream media involving a single Wikipedia hoax? The original Seigenthaler hoax was a prank, similar to those that have haunted "professional" newspapers, in clear violations of their policies. Journalists and Wikipedians are not perfect, but there are policies in place to reduce pranks and errors.

But that is not the only question. Does the Wikipedia also blow incidents out of proportion? Here in this section we have spent many words to discuss a relatively brief incident.

The original was written by Jokestress.

Jokestress 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

63.119.246.13 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) edited on Jan. 30, 2006 by Eric Newton, enewton@aol.com


 * Looks fine to me, except the "further sourcing" bit. This article is a somewhat complicated case (which is why I find it interesting) since Wikipedia discourages editing of one's own biography and also discourages self-references to Wikipedia. The edit history for a page does not appear to qualify as an acceptable published source, though once that edit history has appeared in a published account (like Brandt's exposure of Brian Chase or Seigenthaler's quotation of his article's vandalism in USA Today), then it is OK to use. Wikipedia's unprecedented growth is raising all sorts of interesting issues like this, but to date, the core policies remain in place. As is states right above the "Save Page" button when someone makes an edit:


 * Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.


 * As far as Wikipedia blowing things out of proportion, I guess it depends on POV, as many people think Seigenthaler's response could be characterized as such.


 * Maybe someday for kicks I'll copyedit the bias and misinformation out of the "Wicked Wikipedia" editorial that appeared in the Sun-Sentinel and make that more balanced, too.


 * And if this seems like a lot of discussion, I've seen editors go back and forth for more than three months over one sentence on contentious topics like intelligent design or race and intelligence. Jokestress 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Newton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040906022052/http://www.sfsu.edu/~sfsumag/archive/sp_sum_03/alumni1.html to http://www.sfsu.edu/~sfsumag/archive/sp_sum_03/alumni1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)