NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Babylondon/EDWARDCULLENSTALKER.jpg
This picture has led me to realize that Wikipedia has had quite a few not-so-famous mistakes.

Has anyone found/seen any blunders like this on Wiki?
(And LOL at the picture itself if you like. I know I did.))

*stalks Ashley Waldron*

*gasp* Torrents!

I don't have a link for it, but the most famous mistake on Wikipedia was a spectacularly well-done piece concerning the Upper Peninsular War between Canada and the United States over upper Michigan in the 1830's. It was complete with regiment names and maps detailing lines of advance and retreat. And it was, of course, entirely fake.

Sup Ashley Waldron

I don't have a link for it, but the most famous mistake on Wikipedia was a spectacularly well-done piece concerning the Upper Peninsular War between Canada and the United States over upper Michigan in the 1830's. It was complete with regiment names and maps detailing lines of advance and retreat. And it was, of course, entirely fake.

found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Babylondon/EDWARDCULLENSTALKER.jpg
This picture has led me to realize that Wikipedia has had quite a few not-so-famous mistakes.

Has anyone found/seen any blunders like this on Wiki?
(And LOL at the picture itself if you like. I know I did.))

Edward Cullen? Stalker? I don't know if I'd call that a mistake.

well i could always change a wikipedia page for a while just for a laugh. But thats not really a blunder as opposed to someone deliberately stuffing it up and it will be changed back again

Has anyone found/seen any blunders like this on Wiki?
Wikipedia. Either the one really elaborate hoax, or one big blunder, whichever way you prefer to look at it.


And I do mean it. I've been there for a couple years, been a mediator, a high-level editor, ran wikiprojects, been in arbitrations, been in elections, have seen its inner workings. It's nothing like what it seems to be from the facade.

Still Wikipedia has its uses, but you have to remain critical.

I once found an edit on a page about Leon Czolgosz. Said he escaped and moved to a country where everyone is equal and happy, and that he raised a pet dragon

I once found an edit on a page about Leon Czolgosz. Said he escaped and moved to a country where everyone is equal and happy, and that he raised a pet dragon
I was once reading an article on some famous personage (I forget who) when it was suddenly stated that "X is gay". Threw me right off and I did a double-take.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Babylondon/EDWARDCULLENSTALKER.jpg
You also know Ashley Waldron?? :eek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Babylondon/EDWARDCULLENSTALKER.jpg
This picture has led me to realize that Wikipedia has had quite a few not-so-famous mistakes.

Has anyone found/seen any blunders like this on Wiki?
(And LOL at the picture itself if you like. I know I did.))

Weird - that's not showing up for me..

This?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Babylondon/EDWARDCULLENSTALKER.jpg

Wikipedia. Either the one really elaborate hoax, or one big blunder, whichever way you prefer to look at it.


And I do mean it. I've been there for a couple years, been a mediator, a high-level editor, ran wikiprojects, been in arbitrations, been in elections, have seen its inner workings. It's nothing like what it seems to be from the facade.

Meh. For all the criticism it takes and all the flaws in Wikipedia, it is still a quite useful source of information. On legal issues, for example, it is often not definitive, but it is generally correct and informative.

The best Wiki entries, of course, are those with many links to primary sources one can check for oneself. Wikipedia is often a useful tool for finding such links.

well i could always change a wikipedia page for a while just for a laugh. But thats not really a blunder as opposed to someone deliberately stuffing it up and it will be changed back again

agreed. i remember a couple years ago i changed the wikipedia page so i was the definition os awesome. it only lasted 5 mintues though. and now about 4 computers at my old high school cant update wiki pages.

I've never really paid much attention to the outter content of the Wikipedia pages. I usually just go straight for the information. Now, some of the information contained on Wiki is completely wrong.

An example at the top of my head is that, whoever wrote the article on the Basque Country, completely misspelled the name of the dialect by writting Euskara instead of Euskera, which is the proper spelling.

I've never really paid much attention to the outter content of the Wikipedia pages. I usually just go straight for the information. Now, some of the information contained on Wiki is completely wrong.

An example at the top of my head is that, whoever wrote the article on the Basque Country, completely misspelled the name of the dialect by writting Euskara instead of Euskera, which is the proper spelling.

Spelling it "Mapgrac" would be a complete misspelling. What they did was commit the massive, inexcusable, crime of getting one letter wrong.

Spelling it "Mapgrac" would be a complete misspelling. What they did was commit the massive, inexcusable, crime of getting one letter wrong.

It's still a misspelling.

It's still a misspelling.True, but in all fairness hardly an example of Wiki being completely wrong.

True, but in all fairness hardly an example of Wiki being completely wrong.

Still it's a wrong conveyance of information. Continuing though, an example also of Wiki blunders is how they list Catalonian (catalá) as a language. That's completely wrong. Catalonian is considered a dialect in Spain, same as Asturian and Gallego.

Still it's a wrong conveyance of information. Continuing though, an example also of Wiki blunders is how they list Catalonian (catalá) as a language. That's completely wrong. Catalonian is considered a dialect in Spain, same as Asturian and Gallego.

Again, given the intention of wikipedia (to collect information from laymen) minor mistakes like that are hardly the greatest concern. A simple misspelling, listing something as a language instead of a dialect, typos, et cetera are hardly wikipedia's greatest concern, and even occur commonly in more reputable encyclopedias.

The trick is to remember who write wikipedia; it is not a source of specific information, but rather a great tool to understand the generalities of an issue and research further. It also has the benefit of covering issues no other encyclopedia could cover as quickly, or would have the time and interest to

Still it's a wrong conveyance of information. Continuing though, an example also of Wiki blunders is how they list Catalonian (catalá) as a language. That's completely wrong. Catalonian is considered a dialect in Spain, same as Asturian and Gallego.

Yet it's the official language of Andorra...

Yet it's the official language of Andorra...

Catalá isn't a language but a dialect. It is a dialect because it evolved, gramatically and all, from Castillian and because half of the people in Spain understand it without prior education of it. Gallego is the official dialect of Galicia, as Asturian is the official dialect of Asturias. Spanish, on the other hand, is the official language of the entirety of Spain.

Andorra is a landlocked, and it belongs to France, basically. Sarkozy is head of state. Catalá, because of it's similarities to French, could also be considered a dialect of French.

Catalá isn't a language but a dialect. It is a dialect because it evolved, gramatically and all, from Castillian and because half of the people in Spain understand it without prior education of it. Gallego is the official dialect of Galicia, as Asturian is the official dialect of Asturias. Spanish, on the other hand, is the official language of the entirety of Spain.

Andorra is a landlocked, and it belongs to France, basically. Sarkozy is head of state. Catalá, because of it's similarities to French, could also be considered a dialect of French.

The interesting part, is you've now proven this isn't so much an error, as a fact under dispute: in which case the detail is of even less concern.

For the record, here is a list of mistakes made in the Encyclopedia Britannica that were corrected by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia

The interesting part, is you've now proven this isn't so much an error, as a fact under dispute: in which case the detail is of even less concern.

Even if the fact is under dispute, to assert it as truth, as Wikipedia seems to be doing, is still erroneous.

Catalá isn't a language but a dialect. It is a dialect because it evolved, gramatically and all, from Castillian and because half of the people in Spain understand it without prior education of it. Gallego is the official dialect of Galicia, as Asturian is the official dialect of Asturias. Spanish, on the other hand, is the official language of the entirety of Spain.

Andorra is a landlocked, and it belongs to France, basically. Sarkozy is head of state. Catalá, because of it's similarities to French, could also be considered a dialect of French.

So, hang on, it has its own dialects, the only country in the world that has it as its official language specifically describes it as a language in its constitution, one of the bodies that apparently regulates Catalan describe it as a language, the EU describes it as a language, and from everything I've read about it it is actually derived from vulgar Latin (originating, apparently, as a dialect of Occitan), but you say it's not a language and that's the final word?

Right...

Catalá isn't a language but a dialect. It is a dialect because it evolved, gramatically and all, from Castillian and because half of the people in Spain understand it without prior education of it. Gallego is the official dialect of Galicia, as Asturian is the official dialect of Asturias. Spanish, on the other hand, is the official language of the entirety of Spain.

Andorra is a landlocked, and it belongs to France, basically. Sarkozy is head of state. Catalá, because of it's similarities to French, could also be considered a dialect of French.
You might want to tell the CIA that then, because they have it as a language too: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/an.html

So, hang on, it has its own dialects, the only country in the world that has it as its official language specifically describes it as a language in its constitution, one of the bodies that apparently regulates Catalan describe it as a language, the EU describes it as a language, and from everything I've read about it it is actually derived from vulgar Latin (originating, apparently, as a dialect of Occitan), but you say it's not a language and that's the final word?

Right...

No, just because I'm saying it it's not the final word. But I happen to live in Spain and I happen to work with the same people who have, for years, centuries, designated what's a language in my country and what is a dialect. Countless doctors at university say it, catalá is a dialect. That is has officiality in the region where it belongs to does not make it a language. Just because your research material and the EU say it's a language it makes it so?

I'll go with what the doctors in linguistics here in Spain say.

So, right, ¿verdad?:rolleyes:

Catalá isn't a language but a dialect. It is a dialect because it evolved, gramatically and all, from Castillian and because half of the people in Spain understand it without prior education of it. Gallego is the official dialect of Galicia, as Asturian is the official dialect of Asturias. Spanish, on the other hand, is the official language of the entirety of Spain.

Andorra is a landlocked, and it belongs to France, basically. Sarkozy is head of state. Catalá, because of it's similarities to French, could also be considered a dialect of French.

Even if the fact is under dispute, to assert it as truth, as Wikipedia seems to be doing, is still erroneous.

Nice try at word-play, but no, wikipedia never asserts anything to be truth, merely a commonly agreed collective of opinion, subject to vandalism, interpretation, and dispute.

No, just because I'm saying it it's not the final word. But I happen to live in Spain and I happen to work with the same people who have, for years, centuries, designated what's a language in my country and what is a dialect. Countless doctors at university say it, catalá is a dialect. That is has officiality in the region where it belongs to does not make it a language. Just because your research material and the EU say it's a language it makes it so?

I'll go with what the doctors in linguistics here in Spain say.

So, right, ¿verdad?:rolleyes:

You can believe whatever you like, but as this discussion goes on, the fact you are claiming as absolute is appearing more and more like the opposite is the commonly accepted truth, with some dissent to that view in Spain, hardly Earth-shattering that wikipedia is siding with the commonly accepted view; re:wikipedia's policy.

Nice try at word-play, but no, wikipedia never asserts anything to be truth, merely a commonly agreed collective of opinion, subject to vandalism, interpretation, and dispute.

It seems thought, that the people here take what Wikipedia has to say about the example I gave as truth, Rotovia.

It seems thought, that the people here take what Wikipedia has to say about the example I gave as truth, Rotovia.

Only where they've cited another source

It seems thought, that the people here take what Wikipedia has to say about the example I gave as truth, Rotovia.

Except they've cited the nation's constitution as well as the CIA. You've cited the word of a linguistic professor that you know...?

Only where they've cited another source

Which is what I'm doing, too. I'm citing sources to back my claim.

http://www.almendron.com/politica/pdf/2005.../spain_1820.pdf

An article on the subject by Dr. Mikél Garaú Roselló. The article is in Spanish, unfortunately, but it explains the point.

It seems thought, that the people here take what Wikipedia has to say about the example I gave as truth, Rotovia.

Let me put it like this. I'm a law person, and if I'm looking to find the general judicial interpretation of a law I'll look at the case law. If the major part of the case law says that they take the statute to mean one thing then I'll accept that it's most likely that the law will be interpreted like that again, despite what the minority of cases have to say and would, therefore, be most likely to describe the statute as having that meaning.

Which is what I'm doing, too. I'm citing sources to back my claim.

http://www.almendron.com/politica/pdf/2005.../spain_1820.pdf

An article on the subject by Dr. Mikél Garaú Roselló. The article is in Spanish, unfortunately, but it explains the point.It's times like this when I wish I knew more than one language.

Edit: Although, that brings up a page error I think. FYI.

Which is what I'm doing, too. I'm citing sources to back my claim.

http://www.almendron.com/politica/pdf/2005.../spain_1820.pdf

An article on the subject by Dr. Mikél Garaú Roselló. The article is in Spanish, unfortunately, but it explains the point....There's no page for that link. It comes up with an error message.

...There's no page for that link. It comes up with an error message.

What? It was working just fine when I linked to it just a few minutes ago.

Which is what I'm doing, too. I'm citing sources to back my claim.

http://www.almendron.com/politica/pdf/2005.../spain_1820.pdf

An article on the subject by Dr. Mikél Garaú Roselló. The article is in Spanish, unfortunately, but it explains the point.

You have copied an appreviated link, so this url links to http://www.almendron.com/politica/pdf/2005.../spain_1820.pdf, which is not a page

You have copied an appreviated link, so this url links to http://www.almendron.com/politica/pdf/2005.../spain_1820.pdf, which is not a page

I'm searching for the article. One moment. And I apologize for the faulty link.

Ok, here's the working link, backing my claim. Mikél Garaú Roselló is the vice-president of the Language of the Baleares Academy. He's both an expert in catalá and mallorquino, similar dialects.

http://www.almendron.com/politica/pdf/2005/spain/spain_1820.pdf

Once again, the article is in Spanish. If you want me to translate it, I request some time because I first need to go back home. You're welcome to put it through Babel Fish or any other translation tool at your disposition.

These is a list of Wikipedia errors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/December_1,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:In_the_news
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: Did_you_know

*stalks Ashley Waldron*

Sup Ashley Waldron

These.

These is a list of Wikipedia errors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/December_1,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:In_the_news
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/December_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: Did_you_know
Where are the errors? All I see are stub pages of lists of current events, anniversaries, factoids, and the article of the day. There may be errors on them, but I have no idea what you are pointing out.

Where are the errors? All I see are stub pages of lists of current events, anniversaries, factoids, and the article of the day. There may be errors on them, but I have no idea what you are pointing out.

It's a list provided by Wiki itself. I was just showing it to the posters.

It's a list provided by Wiki itself. I was just showing it to the posters.To what point though? Where did Wiki post this as a list of errors?

To what point though? Where did Wiki post this as a list of errors?

No Luna Amore, the point is to point (sorry foe the repetition) out Wiki blunders. Isn't it?

No Luna Amore, the point is to point (sorry foe the repetition) out Wiki blunders. Isn't it?I hardly call those blunders though. They're more like things that Wikipedia has tagged to be cleaned up.

Find me a page that calls John Lennon an astronaut, now that's a blunder.

*goes off to make John Lennon an astronaut*

No Luna Amore, the point is to point (sorry foe the repetition) out Wiki blunders. Isn't it?

Your point is understood (and there is no doubt that Wiki does blunder), but it isn't clear how your links support your point. In other words, where in those links are the blunders? What makes you think those links contain errors?

(I am NOT trying to be argumentative. I am simply confused. :confused:)

Your point is understood (and there is no doubt that Wiki does blunder), but it isn't clear how your links support your point. In other words, where in those links are the blunders?

(I am NOT trying to be argumentative. I am simply confused. :confused:)

I didn't look for them, tbqh. I just posted the links because these are blunders Wikipedia itself lists as having being made on the different sections named.

Given that Wikipedia is trusting enough to rely on The Internet to update its articles, blunders should be a given. It's amazing how many legitimate and fairly accurate articles are suddenly erased and replaced with infantile and obscenity-laden tripes because someone starts believing they're some sort of performance artiste.

Given that Wikipedia is trusting enough to rely on The Internet to update its articles, blunders should be a given. It's amazing how many legitimate and fairly accurate articles are suddenly erased and replaced with infantile and obscenity-laden tripes because someone starts believing they're some sort of performance artiste.

This one time, Tim Buckley of CAD replaced the entire PVP article with "PVP sucks." Look it up; Buckley's Wikipedia adventures are gloriously dumb.

This one time, Tim Buckley of CAD replaced the entire PVP article with "PVP sucks." Look it up; Buckley's Wikipedia adventures are gloriously dumb.

Here's one of the edit logs he used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.60.213.27

This one time, Tim Buckley of CAD replaced the entire PVP article with "PVP sucks." Look it up; Buckley's Wikipedia adventures are gloriously dumb.

Here's one of the edit logs he used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.60.213.27

Man, the guy is fucking pathetic. Not even Uwe Boll has sunk to this depth.