Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Hot on Facebook
Think You're Pretty Hot? You're Probably Wrong Study finds we have inflated vision of ourselves »

Philip Roth Pens Open Letter to Wikipedia to Fix Error

... and it works, after he is first rejected as a 'credible source'

By John Johnson,  Newser Staff

Posted Sep 8, 2012 11:30 AM CDT

(Newser) – Philip Roth glanced at the Wikipedia entry for his novel The Human Stain and learned that his book was inspired by the life of the late writer and literary critic Anatole Broyard. The problem, writes Roth in an open letter to Wikipedia published in the New Yorker, is that the assertion isn't true. It's just "the babble of literary gossip." The novel, he explains, is based on the life his late friend Melvin Tumin, who taught sociology at Princeton. (A main plot point revolves around the protagonist getting into hot water for innocently referring to two missing students as "spooks," something that actually happened to Tumin.)

The best part of Roth's open letter is that when he approached Wikipedia with the correction through an intermediary, an administrator shot him down: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work, but we require secondary sources," he quotes the administrator as writing. Hence, the open letter, which appears to have worked: The entry on Roth now reflects the new version.

Novelist Philip Roth in 2005.
Novelist Philip Roth in 2005.   (AP Photo/Douglas Healey, file)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
26%
4%
1%
56%
4%
10%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 10 comments
Beanburger
Sep 9, 2012 8:39 AM CDT
What an arrogant fool. When he asked to have the article amended he was told to get a 2nd source rather than just do that he writes to the papers and makes a big fuss. If he had his way anyone could say whatever they liked about themselves - that's what Facebook's for. Edited for typing error.
JustinSage
Sep 8, 2012 3:05 PM CDT
John, do you proof read your stuff?  "... is based on the life his late friend..."  Something is missing here.  I'm not a stickler usually, but when you are a paid professional....
Bambi
Sep 8, 2012 12:13 PM CDT
Weirdly, Wikipedia is right on this one. A 'secondary source' is a source that bears witness to the account of a primary source (or other secondary sources), with primary sources being the direct witnesses to events. Undoubtedly, Wikipedia rejects primary sources because anyone can claim anything as a primary source, including their abductions into flying saucers, etc. The limitation to secondary accounts does not exist because Wikipedia isn't aware that primary sources are the ultimate 'experts', but rather as a vetting mechanism: If the primary source's account is accurate, it will be promulgated in secondary accounts. If not accurate, it will likely be promulgated by some, but probably also challenged by others. Wikipedia is perhaps the most profoundly useful thing the internet has produced. Thank goodness they had the sense to implement, and now to stand up for the integrity of their product
 

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   POPSUGAR Tech   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment   |   NewsOne