How Wikipedia screws up an article - the Anderson Kidnapping

[Zoloft]

Kidnapping of Hannah_Anderson (T-H-L)
Permalinks at time of post: Article Talk

Are dogs people?

That's one of the deep philosophical questions raised on the talk page for this Wikipedia article covering a recent tragedy in California. In the infobox (a box to the right inside the Wikipedia article, containing what are supposed to be the salient facts about the event), you see next to "Death"—"3 people (including the perpetrator), 1 dog"—a rather surprising result, this, considering one of the fatalities seems to be canine.

The talk page confirms that there are at least two separate wrangles and slapfights over the dog, Cali, who was killed in the murders. Not a very respectful way to run the editing of an article about a triple homicide and kidnapping.

Well, according to the article, er, an alleged kidnapping.

It matters not that the case is closed, that the only suspect is dead (shot by the police):

... 16-year-old Hannah Anderson (born July 22, 1997) was allegedly abducted by 40-year-old James Lee DiMaggio.
... a week after she was allegedly abducted.

According to often-violated site policy, WP:NOTNEWS (T-H-L), Wikipedia is not supposed to be a newspaper. But when attention-grabbing news occurs, you will find, often within minutes, a slanted, incorrect Wikipedia article. Like the one we're discussing. With crazy reasoning calmly included in the article like folding a handful of nut pieces into cookie dough.

This article talk page has a few Wikipedia editor-types we've grown to know and loathe.

• The rebels with a cause: IP editors and editor Slipdrive44 (T-C-L) ("allegedly abducted")
• Article Owner: InedibleHulk (T-C-L) (skillfully persisting until the article is compromised their way)
• Original Research Director: InedibleHulk (T-C-L) ('dog as a homicide victim') Hulk smash policy!

The article is a jolly romp over the well-gnawed bones of often-ignored and flouted policy:
WP:OR (T-H-L) - No original research or synthesis of facts.
WP:OWN (T-C-L) - No matter how much time or effort you put into a Wikipedia article, it's not yours. You can't tell people what can or cannot be in the article.

This article is a fresh, half-baked example of why Wikipedia is failing as an encyclopedia.

[Hex]

Short, sweet and to the point. I vote this be blogatized.

[Poetlister]

I think "allegedly abducted" is correct. It has never been established that there was an abduction, still less that the perpetrator of the crime was the person shot dead. Shouldn't we praise Wikipedia for being scrupulous for a change?

[Zoloft]

I think "allegedly abducted" is correct. It has never been established that there was an abduction, still less that the perpetrator of the crime was the person shot dead. Shouldn't we praise Wikipedia for being scrupulous for a change?

My point is the batshit crazy enshrined in this example of article creation.

Look at the talk page!

the cat

---

lot of questions, who owned it, why was it with them, who has it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, these questions remain. I saw one report that stated the cat, which was grey in colour, belonged to DiMaggio. The asasinated dog's ownership was not stated. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.137.217 (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The cat is fine. According to this news story the FBI found it and gave it Hannah Anderson that same day. I don't know anything about the dog, though. In any case, I don't know that this information needs to be added to the article. It might have some merit as something to flesh out the reasons why the two riders thought things were peculiar, but it's not entirely necessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah... found it. The dog belonged to the Anderson family, according to this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know its name and/or gender yet? The dog, I mean. But also the cat. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

I decided to search to check just on a lark and supposedly the cat's name is Princess. ([1]) It looks like it was one of many cats he had. In any case, I did see this Daily Mail article saying that the house was rigged with explosives, which is why she didn't see the fire. Of course this is the Daily Mail, so anything they post is extremely suspect. ([2]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Princess"...meh. I figured it was Hannah's cat, by the way your other link said she was "returned" to her. Kind of cool to hear about a murderer saving a life. I wish every writer would stop saying "a number of" to describe things. It kind of sounds like "many", but could mean three. Maybe three thousand. I'll guess eight. The Daily Mail is a fine photo site. Other than that, yeah, "suspect" is a fair word. I don't think they try to be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

No mention of the little boy that was murdered. No details about the mom.

But the cat! The cat is fine.

[Poetlister]

No mention of the little boy that was murdered. No details about the mom.

But the cat! The cat is fine.

That's how people are; it's by no means just a Wikipedia phenomenon. I remember when the IRA let off a bomb in a London park. Among those seriously injured were two soldiers and the horse being ridden by one of those soldiers. Guess which of the three caused the most revulsion against the IRA?

[Captain Occam]

Was the article always this bad, or did it start off better than this and then get corrupted?

I've thought for a while it might be interesting for this board to have a thread about good-quality articles that have turned bad, such as former FAs that have been demoted. But maybe there's been a thread about something like that here already.