Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Many Hoaxes Are On Wikipedia? No One Knows

Posted by timothy on from the citation-not-sufficient dept.

An anonymous reader writes The Washington Post's Caitlin Dewey has written a lengthy feature covering one of Wikipedia's most intractable problems: carefully inserted hoax information that is almost impossible to detect. Dewey's investigation starts with the recent discovery of the nonexistent Australian god "Jar'Edo Wens" (which lasted almost ten years), and discusses a Wikipediocracy post about a recent experiment by critic Greg Kohs, in which 30 articles received cleverly-chosen minor falsehoods. More than half survived for more than two months. Included is also a chart showing that editing participation in Wikipedia has "atrophied" since 2007. It is quite rare to see a feature in a major media outlet as critical as this, of Wikipedia and its little-known internal problems. Especially on the heels of a very favorable CBS 60 Minutes report. As Kohs says, "I think this has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it's not fair to say Wikipedia is 'self-correcting.'"

5 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Any other examples that anyone's spotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be interesting to see them compare to other sources.

    1. Re:Any other examples that anyone's spotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wikipedia's problem is the Napoleon problem - there are a bunch of self-important "editors" who want to exercise extreme control over everything so you get a lot of people who would contribute who are just turned off by the political factors involved in editing Wikipedia.

      Wikipedia created this problem for itself, and now they are learning that they won't get people involved or to donate when they are treated poorly.

  2. Re:...Wikipedia has "atrophied" since 2007... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Woo-hoo! Slashdot beat Wikipedia. Slashdot didn't atrophy until 18 Sept. 2012.

  3. Wikipedia has exactly one problem... by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The obnoxious cliques of senior editors with god complexes make it virtually impossible to correct anything of substance. And Jimbo cares fuck-all about it as long as enough people click the donation button.

    Sure, you can get into revision wars over whether to use the word "which" or "that" in a given context; but fixing a factual error? Good luck!

    "Citation needed!"
    "But the old, wrong version didn't have a cite either."
    "Doesn't matter, it stays, and my minimum wage burger flipping ass has just banned you for daring to challenge me, you pompous PhD-wielding expert in this particular field!"

  4. Two Important Reasons. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    In many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, the Wikipedia has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects.

    First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has the words Don't Panic inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.