5 ms·

If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to

by qudade 8mo ago

If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.

hagbard_c 8mo ago
Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.
- komali2 8mo ago
  If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus. I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
  - brigandish 8mo ago
    My go-to example is the "Constitution" of Medina[1] > It is widely considered to be one of the first written constitutions of mankind. Now go to the page on constitutions in history[2] and see how far down the list that one is. Now go back to the Constitution of Medina (itself an example of misinformation, since it should be charter or even more precisely, treaty, but those protecting the page have meddled with the title too) and look at the reference it uses[3] and what it says to get a feel for the kind of "reference" that is being used there, and then try and update said Wikipedia page by removing the parts about its being the first. The talk pages of both show that invested groups have been trying to force their views, and they've done it quite successfully. Let us all know how you get on with that, and then I'll point you to the next example, and the next example… Some other notable things to check are co-founder Larry Sanger's 9 theses[4], and the news that broke yesterday about a PR firm doing "Wikilaundering"[5]. That's just the tip of the iceberg. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_devel... [3] https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-world-important-document-prophet%E2%80%99s-time-study-dr-muhammad https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-w... [4] https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-by-consensus https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-b... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-portland-accused-of-commissioning-favourable-changes-to-wikipedia-pages https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-p...
    - Gander5739 8mo ago
      I don't really understand how you've come to that conclusion. If you look at the protection log[1], Constitution of Medina was protected in 2016 for a bit under a month, and never outside of that. The "earliest constitution" was also discussed in 2016[2][3], and there was consensus not to include the claim. Then, in November 2025, it was re-added by a new editor who made no other edits[4]. Looking at the talk page of Constitution, it was discussed exactly once, in 2005[5]. So, next example? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Constitution_of_Medina https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Constitution_of_Medina#First_Constitution_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_n... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Archive_2#Unprotection_and_earliest_constitution_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Medina&diff=prev&oldid=1323817902 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_M... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution/Archive_1#First_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution/Archive_1#Fi...?
      - brigandish 8mo ago
        Why is the protection of a page relevant? Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Why did it have to go to dispute at all? > So, next example? Please.
        Gander5739 8mo ago
        > Why is the protection of a page relevant? >> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too > Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Because anyone can dispute anything. But saying it's some kind of agenda by a group of admins is incorrect. > Why did it have to go to dispute at all? Because someone disputed it. Though, really, it may not have been necessary in this case. You may also refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_man...
- breppp 8mo ago
  worse yet, you might read some topics and won't expect them to be poisoned with misinformation. Like the Holocaust history in Poland https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_news_articles/151/ https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_news_articles/151... https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-the-history-of-the-holocaust-in-poland.html https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-th...
nephihaha 8mo ago
"If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected." It depends on its nature.
brigandish 8mo ago
I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Have you ever tried changing something on Wikipedia regarding politics (which now includes several health issues) or religion? Edit: also, I did write "I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited." and yet you're suggesting I get into that argument. I quite clearly don't want to because it's pointless, and we had years of it anyway.
- Gander5739 8mo ago
  > I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Please do.
  - brigandish 8mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426
    - Gander5739 8mo ago
      Responded there.

by qudade 8mo ago

If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.

hagbard_c 8mo ago

Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.

komali2 8mo ago
If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus. I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
- brigandish 8mo ago
  My go-to example is the "Constitution" of Medina[1] > It is widely considered to be one of the first written constitutions of mankind. Now go to the page on constitutions in history[2] and see how far down the list that one is. Now go back to the Constitution of Medina (itself an example of misinformation, since it should be charter or even more precisely, treaty, but those protecting the page have meddled with the title too) and look at the reference it uses[3] and what it says to get a feel for the kind of "reference" that is being used there, and then try and update said Wikipedia page by removing the parts about its being the first. The talk pages of both show that invested groups have been trying to force their views, and they've done it quite successfully. Let us all know how you get on with that, and then I'll point you to the next example, and the next example… Some other notable things to check are co-founder Larry Sanger's 9 theses[4], and the news that broke yesterday about a PR firm doing "Wikilaundering"[5]. That's just the tip of the iceberg. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_devel... [3] https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-world-important-document-prophet%E2%80%99s-time-study-dr-muhammad https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-w... [4] https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-by-consensus https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-b... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-portland-accused-of-commissioning-favourable-changes-to-wikipedia-pages https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-p...
  - Gander5739 8mo ago
    I don't really understand how you've come to that conclusion. If you look at the protection log[1], Constitution of Medina was protected in 2016 for a bit under a month, and never outside of that. The "earliest constitution" was also discussed in 2016[2][3], and there was consensus not to include the claim. Then, in November 2025, it was re-added by a new editor who made no other edits[4]. Looking at the talk page of Constitution, it was discussed exactly once, in 2005[5]. So, next example? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Constitution_of_Medina https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Constitution_of_Medina#First_Constitution_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_n... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Archive_2#Unprotection_and_earliest_constitution_sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Medina&diff=prev&oldid=1323817902 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_M... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution/Archive_1#First_constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution/Archive_1#Fi...?
    - brigandish 8mo ago
      Why is the protection of a page relevant? Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Why did it have to go to dispute at all? > So, next example? Please.
      - Gander5739 8mo ago
        > Why is the protection of a page relevant? >> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too > Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Because anyone can dispute anything. But saying it's some kind of agenda by a group of admins is incorrect. > Why did it have to go to dispute at all? Because someone disputed it. Though, really, it may not have been necessary in this case. You may also refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_man...
breppp 8mo ago
worse yet, you might read some topics and won't expect them to be poisoned with misinformation. Like the Holocaust history in Poland https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_news_articles/151/ https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_news_articles/151... https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-the-history-of-the-holocaust-in-poland.html https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-th...

nephihaha 8mo ago

"If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected." It depends on its nature.

brigandish 8mo ago

I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Have you ever tried changing something on Wikipedia regarding politics (which now includes several health issues) or religion? Edit: also, I did write "I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited." and yet you're suggesting I get into that argument. I quite clearly don't want to because it's pointless, and we had years of it anyway.

Gander5739 8mo ago
> I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Please do.
- brigandish 8mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426
  - Gander5739 8mo ago
    Responded there.