7 ms·

And the worst is the cycle: 1. There is incorrect information on wikipedia. 2. Legacy news publishes an article, using wikipedia as source (of course). 3. No

And the worst is the cycle: 1. There is incorrect information on wikipedia. 2. Legacy news publishes an article, using wikipedia as source (of course). 3. Now the incorrect information is essentially canonized

JdeBP 3mo ago
On the other hand, some of the best is when a hoax written by a monk in the north of England some time around 1300 is debunked by late 20th century scholarship, and eventually someone makes Wikipedia no longer re-hash a propagandist revision of the Battle of Stirling Bridge re-set in Wales that stood unchallenged for almost 7 centuries. * https://youtube.com/v/mLdB5s7-h0w https://youtube.com/v/mLdB5s7-h0w * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Orewin_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
SanjayMehta 3mo ago
Circular references. This methodology has been called out by several researchers. NYT, WaPo are key users of this technique. Off the top of my head: https://citationintegrity.org/ https://citationintegrity.org/ Wikipedia features prominently as a defaulter.
- ImPostingOnHN 3mo ago
  I don't know that some dude's blog is an accurate judge of the listed entities
card_zero 3mo ago
Citogenesis, a well-known hazard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...
Akronymus 3mo ago
or: 1: the media has a vested interest in only reporting a certain slant, because it involves criticizing the media 2: because the media is the only source deemed reliable, that slant becomes the truth
amiga386 3mo ago
If you spot it in Wikipedia, point it out, it does get removed. Leaving a comment on the talk page  gets editors on-board to patrol for accidental attempts to add the incorrect information back in. Wikipedia does not like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis
frm88 3mo ago
>There is incorrect information on wikipedia. Wikipedia has an article titled “Yahweh.” Now, as I am a Christian,[8] "Yahweh" is the name of my God.[0] This is one of Sanger's proposed changes and this is not an undisputed fact, more like a dispute among theologicans [1] and with the confidence he wants this change implemented, I am highly sceptical, that misinformation will decrease. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#2._Enable_competing_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#.... [1] https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/is-yahweh-the-christian-god-a-critical-examination/#Theological_Arguments_for_and_Against_Yahweh_as_the_Christian_God https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/is-yahweh-the-christia...

JdeBP 3mo ago

On the other hand, some of the best is when a hoax written by a monk in the north of England some time around 1300 is debunked by late 20th century scholarship, and eventually someone makes Wikipedia no longer re-hash a propagandist revision of the Battle of Stirling Bridge re-set in Wales that stood unchallenged for almost 7 centuries. * https://youtube.com/v/mLdB5s7-h0w https://youtube.com/v/mLdB5s7-h0w * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Orewin_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

SanjayMehta 3mo ago

Circular references. This methodology has been called out by several researchers. NYT, WaPo are key users of this technique. Off the top of my head: https://citationintegrity.org/ https://citationintegrity.org/ Wikipedia features prominently as a defaulter.

ImPostingOnHN 3mo ago
I don't know that some dude's blog is an accurate judge of the listed entities

card_zero 3mo ago

Citogenesis, a well-known hazard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...

Akronymus 3mo ago

or: 1: the media has a vested interest in only reporting a certain slant, because it involves criticizing the media 2: because the media is the only source deemed reliable, that slant becomes the truth

amiga386 3mo ago

If you spot it in Wikipedia, point it out, it does get removed. Leaving a comment on the talk page  gets editors on-board to patrol for accidental attempts to add the incorrect information back in. Wikipedia does not like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis

frm88 3mo ago

>There is incorrect information on wikipedia. Wikipedia has an article titled “Yahweh.” Now, as I am a Christian,[8] "Yahweh" is the name of my God.[0] This is one of Sanger's proposed changes and this is not an undisputed fact, more like a dispute among theologicans [1] and with the confidence he wants this change implemented, I am highly sceptical, that misinformation will decrease. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#2._Enable_competing_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#.... [1] https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/is-yahweh-the-christian-god-a-critical-examination/#Theological_Arguments_for_and_Against_Yahweh_as_the_Christian_God https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/is-yahweh-the-christia...