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

Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#21

Post by TEP_Kim_Il_Sung »

porthz wrote: post #9
mellosouls wrote: post #8

One of the weaker points of Wikipedia is the way editors lazily refer to journalistic "reliable" sources as authoritative when a significant amount of the time the journalist is lazily using WP as their own source. Just a couple of these circular references build up a circumstantial base of "evidence" which is then itself used to bolster the original weak claims which often reflect nothing more than an editorial or j…

Not only WP: An increasing amount of articles just cite "sources say" or "an unnamed U.S. intelligence official says". Then the entire world press copies the article within hours. Even Reuters and AP have adopted the practice. Then Wikipedia cites the narrative as the truth.

The problem people run into when contesting such information, is that wikipedia doesn't consider Primary Sources as legitimate, but cite secondary sources all day, wether libellous or not.

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#22

Post by ghaff »

mellosouls wrote: post #8

One of the weaker points of Wikipedia is the way editors lazily refer to journalistic "reliable" sources as authoritative when a significant amount of the time the journalist is lazily using WP as their own source. Just a couple of these circular references build up a circumstantial base of "evidence" which is then itself used to bolster the original weak claims which often reflect nothing more than an editorial or j…

Wikipedia implicitly (or maybe explicitly if you read the policies) relies on sources that have gatekeepers, however unknowledgeable/biased/cursory those gatekeepers are in practice. And it probably also favors print publication even though that means readers (and editors) often can't practically verify the information for themselves.

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#23

Post by xbmcuser »

bombcar wrote: post #13
RugnirViking wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are though? They have the name Alan MacMasters, same as the fake inventor > "Alan MacMasters, 30, is an aerospace engineer from London "and not the inventor of the toaster", he assures me with a giggle. "You shouldn't just believe everything you read on the internet." > I feel nervous about the possibility of falling prey to another prank. So I ask Alan to send me a photo of his passport, which he does. He is no…

The "hoaxer" was Alan's friend Alex.

No Alex just changed the name it was Alan that embellished and perpetuated for it years after that

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#26

Post by retconn »

mellosouls wrote: post #8

One of the weaker points of Wikipedia is the way editors lazily refer to journalistic "reliable" sources as authoritative when a significant amount of the time the journalist is lazily using WP as their own source. Just a couple of these circular references build up a circumstantial base of "evidence" which is then itself used to bolster the original weak claims which often reflect nothing more than an editorial or j…

In another front page discussion is what looks like a emerging consensus that grand larceny like the FTX theft is a function of the non existent fact checking of the media.

What possible motivation could exist for establishing a online reference using the media as the canonical and sole source of truth?

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#27

Post by toss1 »

mellosouls wrote: post #8

One of the weaker points of Wikipedia is the way editors lazily refer to journalistic "reliable" sources as authoritative when a significant amount of the time the journalist is lazily using WP as their own source. Just a couple of these circular references build up a circumstantial base of "evidence" which is then itself used to bolster the original weak claims which often reflect nothing more than an editorial or j…

IOW, both Wikipedia and Journalism can be a lot like Santa Claus — there is a lot of "evidence" of his existence, it is just that exactly zero of it is good, i.e., grounded in objective reality. But it makes a nice story, towards which most people seem to gravitate.

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#28

Post by yummypaint »

Given the broad (though admittedly shallow) impact this had in Scotland, and how long it was perpetuated, perhaps the hoax itself deserves an article? The people who learned false stuff about him aren't going to unlearn it because the article was deleted. There needs to be something to set the record straight.

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#29

Post by stavros »

bombcar wrote: post #13
RugnirViking wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are though? They have the name Alan MacMasters, same as the fake inventor > "Alan MacMasters, 30, is an aerospace engineer from London "and not the inventor of the toaster", he assures me with a giggle. "You shouldn't just believe everything you read on the internet." > I feel nervous about the possibility of falling prey to another prank. So I ask Alan to send me a photo of his passport, which he does. He is no…

The "hoaxer" was Alan's friend Alex.

His full name is Alex Jackson, it says so on Wikipedia.

Re: Alan MacMasters: How the great toaster hoax was exposed

#30

Post by teddyh »

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: post #20
rsynnott wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experienced wikipedia editors are often pretty good at catching this circular sourcing on important articles, but, yeah, it's definitely much more of a problem for more obscure things like the history of toasters. Years ago I noticed that the article for the mimic octopus said that it mimicked various things, including the "venomous sole" (!) with a citation that looked suspiciously similar to the wikipedia article.…

For over a decade, wikipedia credited some guy with inventing a special type of blimp, based on some ill-researched news article. About a year ago the article was checked and removed, and then that guy actually invented a blimp, but now wikipedia is refusing to reinstate the article.

Do you have a link to the Wikipedia discussion of the refusal, or even the name of the inventor?
Post reply on HN