Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#41

Post by leephillips »

r0muald wrote: post #34
leephillips wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? What if we were debating where nollidge was born and where he went to school. Would you not be an authoritative source of information on these subjects?

Not really. According to Wikipedia you are not an authoritative source on yourself, e.g. Philip Roth " rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/philip-roth-wikiped... and " rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSPS>

I know. But Wikipedia's rules about authority only have bearing within their universe, and no bearing upon what is actually authoritative. Are you really saying that you are "not really" an authority about what you had for breakfast because Wikipedia wouldn't allow you to claim to be one?

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#42

Post by Houshalter »

scott_s wrote: post #28

The article claims this is an example of a falsehood starting on Wikipedia, percolating to external sources, then perpetuating on Wikipedia because it's in those external sources. That's interesting. But what's more interesting is that this may be an entirely different case: a falsehood starts on Wikipedia, percolates to external sources, and then becomes true because it is pervasive . Then it remains on Wikipedia be…

Perhaps, but it's not what anyone actually calls them. I mean I doubt it's spread into anyone's common everyday language. All of the uses were likely just using Wikipedia as a reference for writing their article.

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#43

Post by dsugarman »

scott_s wrote: post #28

The article claims this is an example of a falsehood starting on Wikipedia, percolating to external sources, then perpetuating on Wikipedia because it's in those external sources. That's interesting. But what's more interesting is that this may be an entirely different case: a falsehood starts on Wikipedia, percolates to external sources, and then becomes true because it is pervasive . Then it remains on Wikipedia be…

is it an actual falsehood? it just says also called a Brazilian aardvark, which is true for at least one person in the world and became true for a lot more after reading it. it seems like the name stuck because people liked the name.

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#44

Post by jboynyc »

I once edited the Wikipedia entry for "boma" to add that the word (which in much of Anglophone East Africa denotes the seat of a district administration) derives from the acronym British Overseas Management Administration. I did so after having seen this acronym listed in numerous government and NGO-issued reports in Malawi, so theoretically I'd have been able to add citations to back me up.

It turned out that this etymology is a popular myth believed by foreigners traveling in the region, some of whom must have acted as consultants for local government and civil society organizations and written their "knowledge" into official publications in this capacity. Nobody edited their dead tree reports to rectify their fallacy, but on Wikipedia somebody jumped in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boma_(enclosure)#Etymology_and...

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#45

Post by Grae »

scott_s wrote: post #28

The article claims this is an example of a falsehood starting on Wikipedia, percolating to external sources, then perpetuating on Wikipedia because it's in those external sources. That's interesting. But what's more interesting is that this may be an entirely different case: a falsehood starts on Wikipedia, percolates to external sources, and then becomes true because it is pervasive . Then it remains on Wikipedia be…

Actually, the final paragraph of the article directly addresses this point:

"Taxonomically speaking, this is unfortunate. The coati has no more relation to an aardvark than to any other vertebrate, so the name is misleading. But language, unlike taxonomy, is particularly susceptible to Wikiality. The nickname began because Breves wanted to retroactively prove that he had seen some kind of aardvark at Iguazu Falls. He was more successful than he ever could have imagined. Search YouTube for “coatis at Iguaçu Falls,” and you’ll get an amateur video, posted by someone Breves has never met, titled “Coati - (Brazilian aardvark) at Iguaçu Falls, Argentina.” Breves made his own reality, and, thanks to Wikipedia, we’ve all accepted it."

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#46

Post by stcredzero »

willvarfar wrote: post #21

I once changed facts on wikipedia. We worked for a smartphone maker back when they were new, and we had smartphones and GPRS. So when we did a treasure hunt for team building, where there was multiple-choice questions hidden in a forest, every team thought themselves clever by searching for the answers on the still-young wikipedia. But my team was cleverer: we were editing wikipedia. There were a lot of confused low-…

But my team was cleverer: we were editing wikipedia.

Speaking as a game programmer: The thing about computer moderated games, is that they foster the idea that, "If the system allows it, it's alright." There are entire national banking systems that have fallen under such attitudes.

(Sometimes you just have to get real and handle dice and cards on a table top.)

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#47

Post by tokai »

vanderZwan wrote: post #30

I wonder, isn't there some kind of way to measure "effective citations"? In biology, if you look at population size, there's the population measured in absolute number of organisms, and the population measured in genetic diversity[0][1]. For citations I can imagine measuring the number of citations from primary sources, and everything else just being citations to citations to... etc, including circular citations. [0]…

There is a scholarly field occupied with the concept of citation and reference. It is called bibliometrics. The tl:dr is that citations are a very complex social phenomenon, which is difficult to describe fully even in the semi structured confinements of scientific literature. Both technical and, even more pressing, theoretical developments are needed before measuring "effective" citations could become anywhere near feasible.

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#48

Post by frobozz »

> "Taxonomically speaking, this is unfortunate. The coati has no more relation to an aardvark than to any other vertebrate,"

Being mammals, surely they are more closely related to aardvarks than they are to sparrows, carp, asps and axolotls.

Being placental mammals, they are more closely related to aardvarks than they are to kangaroos.

Looking into it further, Wikipedia claims that they are both Epitherians, which makes them more closely related to one another than to armadillos.

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#49

Post by reeses »

scott_s wrote: post #28

The article claims this is an example of a falsehood starting on Wikipedia, percolating to external sources, then perpetuating on Wikipedia because it's in those external sources. That's interesting. But what's more interesting is that this may be an entirely different case: a falsehood starts on Wikipedia, percolates to external sources, and then becomes true because it is pervasive . Then it remains on Wikipedia be…

Don't worry, it will turn out to be, in fact, an aardvark. Please see the "panda bear is a racoon, oops, no, he's a bear," controversy.

The fundamental problem is that Wikipedia's editorial policies great drag on the memory hole.

Re: How a Raccoon Became an Aardvark

#50

Post by somethingnew »

scott_s wrote: post #28

The article claims this is an example of a falsehood starting on Wikipedia, percolating to external sources, then perpetuating on Wikipedia because it's in those external sources. That's interesting. But what's more interesting is that this may be an entirely different case: a falsehood starts on Wikipedia, percolates to external sources, and then becomes true because it is pervasive . Then it remains on Wikipedia be…

http://xkcd.com/978/
Post reply on HN