23 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

It was voted a 'good article' - a Wikipedia badge of honor - and sat happily on the online encyclopedia for more than half a decade. But editors have lately discovered a small issue with the site's meticulously written 4,500 word article detailing the 17th century Bicholim Conflict.

It was entirely made up.

http://www.dailymail...-word-hoax.html

[Wickian]

Hence why a wiki reference isn't usually considered credible.

[Hilander]

But of course the Daily Mail is always credible.  Isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Still Waters]

Hilander, on 06 January 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

But of course the Daily Mail is always credible.  Isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black.

They sourced the Daily Dot for this piece of news.

http://www.dailydot....t-hoax-deleted/

[notoverrated]

LOL awesome.

[KainFall]

Wikipedia has always been a lie to me.

Edited by KainFall, 07 January 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[the L]

Lets invent new law, about intenional spreading of lies, misleading people, deciving. Find him trough IP and punish him.

[KainFall]

the L, on 07 January 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Lets invent new law, about intenional spreading of lies, misleading people, deciving. Find him trough IP and punish him.

They already exist.. There just overwhelmed by Laws behind freedom.. You have to standup against tyranny.. Or else its considered your letting it happen.. Which is apparently against the law..
Which leads to the fact that were able to sue the govt so easily. Why? Why do cases end so pathetically? IDK its annoying.. Its The point and reasoning of rebellion and why theres so much hype behind it....

OH, you said new law... Well sure thing, lets do it!!. oh wait we cant.. Revolves around religion to much. GAHD im getting bored.

Edited by KainFall, 07 January 2013 - 03:33 PM.

[27vet]

There was a page about a fictitious airport in South Africa which I knew was a hoax because I have edited most of S.A. airports myself. It was duly removed. The fraudster's IP address was banned I'm sure. I think that there are enough serious people perusing Wiki to quickly pick up duff entries, however as long as anyone can edit it there will always be vandals.

[khol]

theres people out there who have nothing better to do then mislead,misdirect and misinform others for there own entertainment
but i suppose in a way as long as its not hurting anyone who cares
its up to individuals to form there own opinions about things
wikipedia is well known for its not so accurate information
the writer of this particular article i'm sure got quite a chuckle from all this
just like all the other hoaxers out there..circlemakers and the like
its all part of the human condition...if all of us were on the same page the progress we would make
towards understanding aspects of our existence would be infinite in value
but we are not all the same..humans are imperfect creatures who will manipulate and decieve there own kind...i guess its an evolutionary phenonema really...survival of the fittest and all that
i lie to you where the food source is so theres more for me or something like that

[CuriousGreek]

Not that i was relying much on Wikipedia, but that was a blow for that site...

[bison]

Before deciding that Wikipedia is unreliable, it should be borne in mind that an independent study found it as accurate as other sources of general information. Wikipedia has become much more careful about its fact checking and editing, over the years.
Scholarship in general is scarcely immune  from incidents of fraud. There are many instances of scientists 'cooking' the data to fraudulently prove or disprove something, and its being believed in for years The piltdown man hoax was seriously believed in by science for decades. Shall we assume that these incidents mean that scientific community is unreliable and disreputable?

[G Donnelly]

Fictional hoaxes aside, Wikipedia has been having a few troubles of it's own.
Apparently Jimmy Wales has been trolling for donations now and again.
So would anybody here put their hands in their pockets to save something where the info can be faked?
However I think it's the nature of the beast that anybody can put their five cents in besides the jokers.
It's a total free for all where any kind of trivia can be placed to illuminate us.
There could be people contributing to it that have not that realised the information is misleading anyway.
If you want my honest opinion nothing is to be taken for granted on the Internet.
Tbh I wouldn't spotted this re-writing of history which go's to show how clever it is.
However there's always somebody waiting round the corner who's smarter.

Edited by Medium Brown, 07 January 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Sundew]

khol, on 07 January 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

theres people out there who have nothing better to do then mislead,misdirect and misinform others

Would that be the mainstream media or the politicians?

[DieChecker]

I would much rather go to Wikipedia, which has basically neutrally oriented Fact Checkers, rather then simply trust in any of the millions of politically... religiously... socially... racially... oriented/slanted independent sites that don't site their information at all.

Edited by DieChecker, 08 January 2013 - 12:37 AM.