NationStates Jolt Archive

A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world.

The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March.

It was posted on the online encyclopedia shortly after his death and later appeared in obituaries published in the Guardian, the London Independent, on the BBC Music Magazine website and in Indian and Australian newspapers.

Read More >> (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html)

IMHO, it's not the fault of the concept of Wikipedia but the laziness of the journalists. They should check several sources before they publish anything, what they didn't.

The concept of Wiki is rather strong. A study in Nature showed that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. But the articles in Wiki are 2,6 on average longer. So the error rate is lesser.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

The more users Wiki will have, the more accurate it will be in the future.

Fuck yeah, UCD!

Ahhh, my old alma mater. So not surprised :tongue:

Brilliant! It's good to see that the spirit of Piltdown Man is alive and well.

Heard about it on the radio this morning.
This doesn't really say much about wikipedia, but it speaks volumes about the work ethics of a lot of journalists...

Heard about it on the radio this morning.
This doesn't really say much about wikipedia, but it speaks volumes about the work ethics of a lot of journalists...

It wasn't exactly world-breaking news though. It was more of a "look for an interesting quotation from a guy that's just died" kinda job. I'd have just googled it, and then trusted that someone wouldn't have defaced wikipedia with such a convincing sounding quotation.

This is a credit to student kind everywhere. Kudos to our Dublin brother!

It wasn't exactly world-breaking news though. It was more of a "look for an interesting quotation from a guy that's just died" kinda job. I'd have just googled it, and then trusted that someone wouldn't have defaced wikipedia with such a convincing sounding quotation.

Well, yes, it was easy and looked like just the thing they were out for.
And no, it wasn't world-changing news... but even though, you don't rely on stuff on wiki without checking its referencing. You just don't.
It might not even have been malicious. Some guy might have heard the quote and thought it was Maurice Jarre who said it. Wiki is good as a starting point, but not for reference when doing any kind of research whatsoever.

Well, yes, it was easy and looked like just the thing they were out for.
And no, it wasn't world-changing news... but even though, you don't rely on stuff on wiki without checking its referencing. You just don't.
It might not even have been malicious. Some guy might have heard the quote and thought it was Maurice Jarre who said it. Wiki is good as a starting point, but not for reference when doing any kind of research whatsoever.

Not one encyclopaedia should be used as the only reference point when doing research. The error rate of wiki is comparable to other sources.

I've been banned from wiki at four different locations :(

could this be another example of a lack of accountability for journalists? students get their asses kicked if they use wikipedia, and everyone sane knows wikipedia is a good starting point, but that you always have to verify with other sources. but journalists? they can say a big 'fuck you' to all of that because they don't really have to answer to anyone.

well, at least this time they might have to answer to their editors :D

Heard about it on the radio this morning.
This doesn't really say much about wikipedia, but it speaks volumes about the work ethics of a lot of journalists...

This is what really gets me. Not only did these journalists do a poor job at fact checking, they were using an encyclopedia as a source? Really?

Wiki is great, but it's still an encyclopedia and it's bad form to use them as a source for anything, even if wikipedia is technically more dependable than other encyclopedias.

This isn't even much of a hoax. It's not like he made the composer confess to be a homosexual. Just an innocent tracer experiment.


By the way, have I mentioned that every Wikipedia article on a serious topic I've created or contributed greatly to contains at least one tracer? That is a factual mistake, not significant enough to affect the point of the article, but making it blindingly obvious to any specialist that the person saying that has zero understanding of the subject and is ripping off Wikipedia. It's designed to have kids who barge into a serious newsgroup with wikiknowledge quickly make fools out of themselves.

[ The watermark would be along the lines of citing the advantages of lens X and mentioning how they are particularly observed in camera Y - while anyone who has ever seen either knows that lens X can't be used with camera Y at all. ]

As you can see from the above link, I'm not the only one. And we're clearly not the only two. Remember that if ever trying to use the wiki to argue with people who actually know the subject.

Splendid! Now we only need to get journalists to check Uncyclopedia! :D

Splendid! Now we only need to get journalists to check Uncyclopedia! :D

Or perhaps Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

Five different locations :(

There must be a Noam Chomsky protection patrol.

Splendid! Now we only need to get journalists to check Uncyclopedia! :D
That. Would. Be. Epic. :D
Five different locations :(

There must be a Noam Chomsky protection patrol.

We heard you the first time.

We heard you the first time.

That was this morning. I added another.

That was this morning. I added another.

Then, perhaps, just perhaps, you should stop screwing with Chomsky's entry?

Nobody has caught on to my Wikipedia hoax yet. :D

Then, perhaps, just perhaps, you should stop screwing with Chomsky's entry?

Oh, no. I've gotten Chomsky's entry itself locked from January until June. Now I'm just going around posting pictures of garden gnomes extolling the virtue of Gnome Chomsky in related articles, or how the truth of Gnome Chomsky is being oppressed, etc. So on and so forth.

A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world.

The quote was attributed to French composer Maurice Jarre who died at the end of March.

It was posted on the online encyclopedia shortly after his death and later appeared in obituaries published in the Guardian, the London Independent, on the BBC Music Magazine website and in Indian and Australian newspapers.

Read More >> (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html)

IMHO, it's not the fault of the concept of Wikipedia but the laziness of the journalists. They should check several sources before they publish anything, what they didn't.

The concept of Wiki is rather strong. A study in Nature showed that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. But the articles in Wiki are 2,6 on average longer. So the error rate is lesser.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

The more users Wiki will have, the more accurate it will be in the future.
Thus, why my students are not allowed to use this as a main source, but as a source farm.

Nobody has caught on to my Wikipedia hoax yet. :D

That wikipedia actually exists?

Oh, no. I've gotten Chomsky's entry itself locked from January until June. Now I'm just going around posting pictures of garden gnomes extolling the virtue of Gnome Chomsky in related articles, or how the truth of Gnome Chomsky is being oppressed, etc. So on and so forth.

It's people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name.

That wikipedia actually exists?

That there's an 'internet'. *nod*

It's people like you that give Wikipedia a bad name.

Thank you :)

That there's an 'internet'. *nod*

Ah, I suspected as much. Although what really tipped me off was when my computer kicked me in the groin.

Ah, I suspected as much. Although what really tipped me off was when my computer kicked me in the groin.

I was hoping that subroutine would work. :)

ROFL

Obviously these journalists are typical of most people who think that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information.

Plus laziness on the original journalists behalf.

ROFL

Obviously these journalists are typical of most people who think that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information.

Plus laziness on the original journalists behalf.

It is an excellent source. Why do you think different?
I showed that the error rate is comparable to Encyclopædia Britannica.

Journalists, scientists and others should only not use it as the one and only source.

It is an excellent source. Why do you think different?
I showed that the error rate is comparable to Encyclopædia Britannica.

Journalists, scientists and others should only not use it as the one and only source.

You know for all the various research papers by various professionals I have never seen one use Wikipedia as a source at all.

You know for all the various research papers by various professionals I have never seen one use Wikipedia as a source at all.

And you've seen research papers use any encyclopedia as an actual source?

And you've seen research papers use any encyclopedia as an actual source?

Can't say I have, so does that mean they shouldn't be using any encyclopedias as a source?

Can't say I have, so does that mean they shouldn't be using any encyclopedias as a source?

Yes...in anything beyond high school, citing an encyclopedia is unacceptable. This is why it annoys me when people bitch about citing wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. No, it's bad to cite wikipedia because it's a fucking encyclopedia--they are never to be used as actual sources. As far as an encyclopedia goes, it's actually better than anything traditional encyclopedia. Especially in topics that don't include major figures, I think. You get ridiculous edits on Lincoln's entry, or Angelina's or any other famous figure. But on, say, ferromagnetic resonance or some such obscure topic isn't likely to have completely drastically bullshitty entries, even if it isn't necessarily the most accurate source of information.

You get ridiculous edits on Lincoln's entry, or Angelina's or any other famous figure. But on, say, ferromagnetic resonance or some such obscure topic isn't likely to have completely drastically bullshitty entries, even if it isn't necessarily the most accurate source of information.
Actually it's the opposite. Perhaps 99% of Wikipedia editors are about 14 years old, give or take a couple, so celebrity articles get fixed quickly. So does anything with loads of sources. On the other hand, in specialized topics, 99.99% of the editors have zero knowledge, so they can't see what is right and what is not. As such, any crackpot (and these like Wikis) will be editing in his fringe theory or personal view. These rarely get noticed, and, if said crackpot has a 'source' to support it, at most they get prefixed with "Today the emerging view is..." or something like that.

Wikipedia may have a bit fewer errors, but the ones it has aren't mere misspelled dates; they tend to be severe and intentional distortions of fact.