Slashdot Mirror
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."
I take exception to the idea that only scholarly journals may be primary sources of information
Actually, scholarly journals can be sources of disinformation, too. It's happened before that researchers have gotten something wrong, then were quoted by other researchers in other papers. It has often gone full circle (and I wish I had a citation, but it's been a long time since I read about it).
There have been instances of respected newspapers using The Onion as sources, not realizing that fine news source is humor. The Onion must hate that, it would be like when you make a joke comment on slashdot and it gets modded as "insightful".
In Wikipedia's defence, I've complained about an edit I made after I became a cyborg in its entry about cataract surgery. I added information about the accomodating lens I had implanted in my eye, and it was quickly removed. I added it again and it was removed again. I gave up, and a few months ago I mentioned it here and someone encouraged me to try once more.
The entry finally stayed put, although someone changed the date that the FDA approved it from 2003 to 2004, despite the manufacturer's website says 2003 (I just now changed it to 2003, I wonder if it will stay?). I suspect that a different IOL manufacturer edited my edit out because the device is by far superior to any other IOL.
Kudos to Wikipedia. It is a great resource for satisfying curiosity; when I found I needed cataract surgery it was the first place I went. Same goes for when I had to undergo a vitrectomy (I wouldn't wish that procedure on my worst enemy).
It's also great for when you're turning old LPs and cassettes into CDs, you can copy and paste track titles into your burning software.
My dad gave me great advice when I was a kid: never believe anything you hear (or read) and only half of what you see.
Free Martian Whores!
You mean like the actual fucking person the article is about? Oh wait, Wikipedia doesn't consider the actual fucking person to be a "primary source"!
And therein lies Wikipedia's problem.
Quite true.
I'm mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Not by name, but by an old nickname (the same one I use for my username on this site). However, it's spelled incorrectly, mainly because it's quoting another website that also spelled it incorrectly. That website also states a bunch of "facts" that were made up as a joke, and the Wikipedia article repeats those "facts".
I can't correct the original website, but I can correct Wikipedia -- except that I'm not allowed to, because I can't actually provide a link that proves that I really do spell the name the way I do, or that the "facts" were made up. Plus, I think it's even against the rules to edit articles about yourself.
Therefore, both of the people out there who care about the content of this particular article will remain blissfully misinformed.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Wikipedia-fr is already affected from a long time in this article :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Gourg
It is stated that the "Fat_Gourg" has a fan club of thousands of people in France.
The fact is that the fact gourg started as a running joke on a website/forum after someone found this picture online. The game, between approximately 20 people, was to found the author of the picture. One of those 20 people was a regular wikipedia editor with a good record and created this page with false statement like "Thousand of people".
Ultimately, the fat gourg joke came to a journalist in UK who interviewed someone on the forum which, of course, putted some exageration and emphasis in his description. The journalist then wrote an article saying that "it was an huge phenomemon in France followed by thousands of people". This artcile was followed by a very small television reportage in the school of the child who drawed the Fat Gourg.
The article was then added as a source on Wikipedia.
I tried two or three times to correct that page but :
- a (otherwise) respected wikipedia editor which is part of the joke always undo my changes
- my version is now in conflict with all of the sources in the article (which are, in fact, comming from one and only one person)
So I look like a liar because Wikipedian the television and newspapers say something but, ultimately, nobody in France know about the Fat Gourg except a few tenth of people on a forum.
And yes, I feel that something is bad but I have no real solution.
Ploum.net.