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

31–40 of 74 posts

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

#31

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

Tagbert wrote: post #24
bombcar wrote: post #5

https://xkcd.com/978/ If a hoax or fake item doesn’t get caught quickly it becomes self perpetuating.

election fraud

As a foreigner, I'll just note that I haven't seen a US election without ballot/machine issues, or the widespread fear of issues, in at least 20 years - every time the losers have talked about structural election issues like ballot harvesting.

The problem is that the desire to fix this is entirely partisan and the party in power always mocks the other party, even if this was their issue for the last cycle.

The USA has a problem. The process (of voting) isn't just supposed to provide an answer, but an answer you can trust. There's no transparency in the process and if people ever do ask a question ("why was that seemingly extra bag of ballots pulled out of a closet at 1am?") they get mocked as idiots who don't intimately understand the process.

Looking at the process of voting and counting in the USA there are a lot of things I'd fix to make the process more visible. In any industry where people monitor workers by video (casinos especially) they have them work in very standard ways, hand motions, card locations, etc, all chosen to make cheating hard and easy to detect.

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

#32

Post by derefr »

retconn wrote: post #26
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?

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

Because "the media" is... the best source we have?

To be clear, Wikipedia doesn't require that you cite mainstream media sources only. You can cite anything that's a primary source as fact (whether that be a work of investigative journalism, a book, a letter, a blog post by someone involved, a study described in a journal paper, etc); and anything that's a secondary source as an attributed quote (whether that be a work of editorial journalism, a magazine article, a blog post by someone who isn't involved, a meta-analysis described in a journal paper, etc.)

That's actually a very low bar. For example, people who are discouraged from "original research" on Wikipedia, can simply stick said original research onto a website they own, and then edit Wikipedia to cite that, and that's 100% allowed. (It's disincentivized to promote your own investigative reporting or quote your own words on Wikipedia, but if you did it all "by the book", nobody's going to revert the edit.)

In all cases, the only real requirement is that everything Wikipedia says has to be be attributable via citation to something, somewhere, that exists in the public sphere of semi-permanent accessibility, such that a reader could reasonably be expected to be able to fact-check the citation qua citation by "chasing the pointer" to its referent. So you can't cite a person (as a person won't necessarily give you the same answer twice); but you can cite an interview with said person recorded at a specific time and put into some form of public record (e.g. a court proceeding.)

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

#33

Post by vanderZwan »

Is that a tie wrap around the power cord of that 1909 toaster pictured at the end of the article? How old are those?

EDIT: Wikipedia (... yeah I know) says tie wraps were invented somewhere between 1956 and 1958. So the picture cannot be the earliest picture of the earliest toaster either I guess?

Goodness, I do not envy historians.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_tie

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

#34

Post by SamBam »

derefr wrote: post #32
retconn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What possible motivation could exist for establishing a online reference using the media as the canonical and sole source of truth? Because "the media" is... the best source we have? To be clear, Wikipedia doesn't require that you cite mainstream media sources only. You can cite anything that's a primary source as fact (whether that be a work of investigative journalism, a book, a letter, a blog post by someone inv…

Actually, to correct this: it's highly recommended by Wikipedia to use secondary sources where possible, not primary, precisely for this reason.

"Original research" is exactly the opposite of what you mean, original research in the context of Wikipedia generally means citing primary sources. The "research" that is original is the interpretation of the raw data (the primary sources). The preferred approach is to cite an expert's interpretation of the data or event.

You can disagree whether this makes sense, or whether most articles follow this, but this is Wikipedia's policy:

> Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

> Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

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

#35

Post by kergonath »

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.

> Not only WP: An increasing amount of articles just cite "sources say" or "an unnamed U.S. intelligence official says".

Giving indications about the source is important for the reader to evaluate its seriousness. Not giving too much information is important to keep your source long term, and to get others (nobody is going to talk to a journalist know to expose their sources). Of course this depends on journalists being reasonably truthful otherwise the whole thing has no value. This is why reputation is critical and serious journals sack their journalists when they find out they lied.

What is the alternative? It is also very easy to make up a quote, attributing it to someone who’s never said anything like it or just make up a name.

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

#37

Post by nerdponx »

vanderZwan wrote: post #33

Is that a tie wrap around the power cord of that 1909 toaster pictured at the end of the article? How old are those ? EDIT: Wikipedia (... yeah I know) says tie wraps were invented somewhere between 1956 and 1958. So the picture cannot be the earliest picture of the earliest toaster either I guess? Goodness, I do not envy historians. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_tie

The hoax plot thickens! It seems like it's a later photo of a replica of the original (or just the guts of a random toaster) that's meant to look like it's from 1909. The 2-prong plug also looks surprisingly modern.

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

#38

Post by milesskorpen »

vanderZwan wrote: post #33

Is that a tie wrap around the power cord of that 1909 toaster pictured at the end of the article? How old are those ? EDIT: Wikipedia (... yeah I know) says tie wraps were invented somewhere between 1956 and 1958. So the picture cannot be the earliest picture of the earliest toaster either I guess? Goodness, I do not envy historians. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_tie

It could be a picture of the earliest toaster, but the tie was added at a later date. No claim it's original packaging! I imagine it's from a museum or collection and you don't want the cord dangling around.

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

#39

Post by derefr »

smaudet wrote: post #19
rsynnott wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An increasing amount of articles just cite "sources say" or "an unnamed U.S. intelligence official says" Hold on, when is it you think that newspapers did _not_ do this? In general, if a paper is writing about anything vaguely contentious, it will use unnamed sources; if it names its sources then its sources won't stay sources for long, and the media will become little more than a system for regurgitating press rel…

I remember learning about firsthand and secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a primary encyclopedia, its a secondary source. Just like journalism is full of individuals paid off or paid to say (or not) something (sometimes blantantly untrue), wikipedia has plenty of inaccurate or false information. So, it used to be I would use wikipedia as a type of third hand source - find information on a topic, then dig through it…

> Wikipedia is not a primary encyclopedia, its a secondary source.

Technically, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. A "third hand source", as you say.

A secondary source is something like e.g. a book written by a historian based on research they did translating and putting together some primary-source ancient writings. The secondary source can be considered semi-authoritative on a topic; but is still interpreted through a lens. You can quote a secondary source, though always with attribution. What you cannot do, is to state claims from a secondary source as [cited] fact (like you can with a primary source.)

Because of the "anyone can edit" part, though, Wikipedia has no authoritative-ness to it — nobody is standing behind and vouching for the validity of any given text that exists on Wikipedia; there's nobody to take responsibility for the inaccuracy of a statement, nobody's professional scholarly or journalistic or critical reputation is on the line. So it's not valid to quote Wikipedia even as a secondary-source "attributed fact." So it's not a valid secondary source. Thus, tertiary.

Mind you, it's also bad even for a tertiary source. A dictionary is a tertiary source, but writers on grammar like https://www.grammarphobia.com/ might still cite historical editions of dictionaries to prove extant historical understanding of a meaning of a term. Not to take the dictionary as authoritative, but just to, effectively, "do cultural anthropology to it" — seeing the dictionary as a well-known work of writing at the time, that can be analyzed for its word choices regardless of who wrote it. In theory, you could cite [a particular point-in-time snapshot of a page from] Wikipedia for similar reasons; but it's one of those rare exceptions where you have to really know what you're doing. You might say that it's challenging to cite Wikipedia, both in a technical sense, and in the sense of doing so being the best thing to do.

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

#40

Post by derefr »

SamBam wrote: post #34
derefr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What possible motivation could exist for establishing a online reference using the media as the canonical and sole source of truth? Because "the media" is... the best source we have? To be clear, Wikipedia doesn't require that you cite mainstream media sources only. You can cite anything that's a primary source as fact (whether that be a work of investigative journalism, a book, a letter, a blog post by someone inv…

Actually, to correct this: it's highly recommended by Wikipedia to use secondary sources where possible, not primary, precisely for this reason. "Original research" is exactly the opposite of what you mean, original research in the context of Wikipedia generally means citing primary sources. The "research" that is original is the interpretation of the raw data (the primary sources). The preferred approach is to cite…

This applies to editorial statements (opinions, interpretations); but if you're just quoting blunt facts, a primary source is preferable, no? E.g. if you're citing a statistic, it's better to cite the study that supplied the statistic, than to cite a science-journalistic review of said study. You can then cite some statement the review made to put the statistic in context; but that should be a separate, second citation, so that the statistic itself can be grounded in a primary source — especially since science-journalism does not often cite the primary sources itself, making it hard to chase the citation for the statistic otherwise.

Or, maybe to couch this in language more friendly to how a Wikipedia editor might think of the process: if you are already providing an attributed quote of a secondary source; and in the secondary source, a fact is quoted from some primary source without a true citation being provided (only a weak, implicit-in-context mention of the source); is it not better to do the "original research" of figuring out what primary source the secondary source got the data for the claim from, and then putting in a citation for the fact inside the quote, yourself, in exactly the way the secondary source's author likely would have if the format they were publishing in allowed true citation? "Repairing" the citation graph, so to speak, where the secondary source has left a gap in it.

(And this is important to the topic at hand: citing only secondary sources for "blunt facts", where those secondary sources are not themselves expected/required to provide citations to primary sources, is exactly how hoax citation graphs arise.)

Post reply on HN