• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Amusing Wikipedia prank

severus

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday 8:56 PM
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
518
---
Location
U.S.
Oh Wikipedia, how I love thee.
--
Such lovely insight into journalism these days. And they wonder why we don't trust them.
 

Felan

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 10:56 PM
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
1,064
---
Location
Unauthorized personnel only
Fascinating read, thanks for that. In part I think it is reflective of the (human) world experiencing growing pains.
 

Venture

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 8:56 PM
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
527
---
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
I used to think about false information on wikipedia too.

I don't really find it as amusing though.
 

Ermine

is watching and taking notes
Local time
Yesterday 9:56 PM
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
2,871
---
Location
casually playing guitar in my mental arena
Part angering and part amazing. Angering that someone would post something totally false on a website with a reputation for reliability, but amazing that someone would stand up and make the media take notice and reexamine themselves.
 

flow

Audiophile/Insomniac
Local time
Yesterday 10:56 PM
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
1,163
---
Location
Iowa
this is why I fear the fall of newspapers..journalistic integrity is dying!
 

Artifice Orisit

Guest
Does historical accuracy at such a trivial level really matter?

I think this just shows that we take our perceptions of validity for granted; that perhaps there is some sort of lesson about existentialism to be learnt from this.

Humans use fuzzy logic to understand the world and as a result our perception of truth can never be anything more than an educated guess.
 

Tyria

Ryuusa bakuryuu
Local time
Today 5:56 AM
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
1,834
---
I'm glad at least one newspaper stood up to the plate and took responsibility. It's a shame the others got defensive and didn't acknowledge their fault in the process of fact checking in journalism.
 

truthseeker72

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:56 PM
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
218
---
Location
Cape Coral, Florida
The media, at least in my lifetime, has never been terribly concerned about reporting the truth. Rather, news outlets have always sought to accomplish two goals: i) adance an ideology; and ii) generate ad revenue.​
 

Tyria

Ryuusa bakuryuu
Local time
Today 5:56 AM
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
1,834
---
Another goal of current news outlets:

Report about things that aren't really newsworthy.


I miss the days when the news was about... the news. I dislike reading tabloids and gossip; really good stories are not made that way (IMHO). There are more important things to cover that aren't being talked about.
 

Ermine

is watching and taking notes
Local time
Yesterday 9:56 PM
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
2,871
---
Location
casually playing guitar in my mental arena
@ Truthseeker: Which is sad because I bet there are enough people looking for the truth that one could make revenue by telling the truth, now that the truth is a rare commodity.
 

truthseeker72

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:56 PM
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
218
---
Location
Cape Coral, Florida
Ermine:

Wikipedia's popularity tells us that a large segment of the population still values truth. After all, Wikipedia's administrators deleted the ficticious quote twice.
 

Kianara

Active Member
Local time
Today 8:56 AM
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
390
---
Location
The inner reaches of my mind
Great link, very interesting read.

It is indeed troubling that such a thing can be done and nobody would have noticed in the journalism world. In school, Wikipedia is at the top of the list for unreliable sources. After this, I have to wonder if the news articles that we are allowed to cite as a source are as reliable as good old Wikipedia.
 

Melkor

*Silent antagonist*
Local time
Today 4:56 AM
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,746
---
Location
Béal feirste
Wonderful.

I've never trusted the press...Except maybe the times..but thats a clever and large paper, which tends to be totally unbiased about everyhting.
 

severus

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday 8:56 PM
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
518
---
Location
U.S.
kianara said:
In school, Wikipedia is at the top of the list for unreliable sources. After this, I have to wonder if the news articles that we are allowed to cite as a source are as reliable as good old Wikipedia.
Yes, I hate how we're not allowed to use Wikipedia! At least their info is being double-checked.
 

Venture

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 8:56 PM
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
527
---
Location
San Diego, CA, USA
Think most of the stuff is quite easy to tell if it legitimate.
But of course not all.
 

Razare

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:56 PM
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
633
---
Location
Michigan - By Lake Michigan
The reason wikipedia is so great is because it is malleable, if it had to be 100% accurate, it would cost 100 times more to maintain the content that they do. You sacrifice 1 or 2 percent of accuracy for the product being offered for free, which is well worth it.

If you open up an old encyclopedia, it's full of errors and falsities because the world changes. The world changes faster than anything can accurately update the database of information. Their current system seems to be the best method so far because errors are eventually corrected and it offers a wider variety of content than those old encyclopedias used to.
 

Enne

Consistently Inconsistent
Local time
Today 4:56 AM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
496
---
Location
;)
>=( Dammit that was MY idea!
 
Top Bottom