Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Long-Term Wikipedia Vandalism Exposed

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the pseudoscience-and-self-promotion dept.

Daveydweeb writes, "The accuracy of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, came into question again when a long-standing article on 'NPA personality theory' was confirmed to be a hoax. Not only had the article survived at Wikipedia for the better part of a year, but it had even been listed as a 'Good Article,' supposedly placing it in the top 0.2-0.3% of all Wikipedia articles — despite being almost entirely written by the creator of the theory himself."

6 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Really? Unconfirmed info on wikipedia?!? by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you badmouthing my grandmother?

    --
    ~ C.
  2. Re:Irregardless is not a fucking word by anaesthetica · · Score: 2, Funny
    Is fucking in the dictionary?

    http://m-w.com/dictionary/fucking

    --
    The Rise and Fall of Online Community
  3. Re:Irregardless is not a fucking word by isorox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Irregardless is not a word

    Yes it is, I saw it in wikipedia!

    Irregardless is a word

  4. Re:I don't see the problem here by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Funny

    OTOH, the famous Time Cube is well and alive on Wikipedia... Granted it is not exactly presented as a mainstream theory :)

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  5. Re:Really? Unconfirmed info on wikipedia?!? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sarcasm or not, you should question everything you read, no matter how trusted the source.

    I don't believe this is true at all!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  6. Re:Really? Unconfirmed info on wikipedia?!? by creepynut · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do I know I can believe what you say is true?