51–60 of 96 posts
It seems to me the problem is that people think there even exists such a thing as an authoritative source.
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?
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?
Even things as simple as identity can be tricky.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If you ask about my breakfast, I could be lying to you or recall yesterday's breakfast instead of today's or whatever.
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.)
I agree with your "this is why you can't have nice things" sentiment, but sadly I think the petty and the vandals and the cranks will always do it, and us techies have to design in protection as default :(
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?
How would you know I'm telling you the truth?
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…
This is exactly what happened to the red panda, where for years the Wikipedia page mentioned "firefox" or "fire fox" as a valid name. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=3... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=1... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=7... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=4...
Given the overlap between Wikipedia editors and proponents of Firefox, there was a strong echo chamber effect.
Thankfully the page has now been fixed.
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…
And yet I couldn't get the moderators to acknowledge the existence of New Mexican/South Western Chili.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's also more pronounceable and appetizing, like the chilean seabass.