False Fact On Wikipedia Proves Itself

An anonymous reader writes "Germany has a new minister of economic affairs. Mr. von und zu Guttenberg is descended from an old and noble lineage, so his official name is very long: Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. When first there were rumors that he would be appointed to the post, someone changed his Wikipedia entry and added the name 'Wilhelm,' so Wikipedia stated his full name as: Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. What resulted from this edit points up a big problem for our information society (in German; Google translation). The German and international press picked up the wrong name from Wikipedia — including well-known newspapers, Internet sites, and TV news such as spiegel.de, Bild, heute.de, TAZ, or Süddeutsche Zeitung. In the meantime, the change on Wikipedia was reverted, with a request for proof of the name. The proof was quickly found. On spiegel.de an article cites Mr. von und zu Guttenberg using his 'full name'; however, while the quote might have been real, the full name seems to have been looked up on Wikipedia while the false edit was in place. So the circle was closed: Wikipedia states a false fact, a reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is then used as the source to prove the false fact to Wikipedia."

Comments

1984?

[betterunixthanunix]

Wikipedia now creates the truth. If they say 2+2=5, then 2+2=5. You will learn to love Big Wiki.

Re:1984?

[NorQue]

Oh, Wikipedia is dead wrong in this case. According to Google 2 + 2 equals 4.

Re:1984?

[Mylakovich]

You missed the joke. It was pretty subtle, though.

Re:1984?

[Dog-Cow]

Der Spiegel is not a scholarly journal, either. It also cannot be taken as a primary source of information.

I take exception to the idea that only scholarly journals may be primary sources of information.

Your attitude sucks.

Re:1984?

[linhares]

I take exception to the idea that only scholarly journals may be primary sources of information. Your attitude sucks.

[citation needed]

Re:1984?

[bhsx]

Here ya go!

Re:1984?

[MrNaz]

That analogy makes sense like baked clams on a toilet seat.

Re:1984?

[Chris Burke]

That's odd. I always though America's Funniest Home Videos was an insightful commentary on inherent masculine insecurities, and the fear that no matter how strong and capable we may try to appear, someone will find and exploit our vulnerabilities and reduce us to the weeping man-child that we all secretly fear we are deep inside.

And that the someone will be a 1st grader with a whiffle-ball bat.

But maybe I'm reading too much into the show.

Re:1984?

[Hordeking]

Excuse me? Wikipedia is a lot worse than it is. (See article.)

So, to put this statement into perspective, you're saying that x!=x.

How could anything be anything other than what it is? Whatever it is, that is what it is, neither more, nor less, than what it is.

Of course, it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

He's lucky anyway

[Enleth]

Knowing what some journalists are capable (or rather incapable) of, I'd not be surprised if they had quoted him stating that his name is "Karl Theodor [citation needed] von un zu Guttenberg"...

He will just have to..

[Dynamoo]

He will just have to change his name so it matches Wikipedia. Problem solved.

ObPython

[Chris Tucker]

Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg, of Ulm.

Re:Nothing new

[History's Coming To]

Not forgetting the fact that God (take your pick) doesn't meet the notability criteria...

Re:Nothing new

[bruthasj]

Yes. Right here: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1123229&cid=26811271