• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Wikipedia bomb

Diamond

Illuminator
D
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
4,729
Sorry about this: I'm not fixated by Wikipedia, I just tend to follow through subjects to their natural conclusion.

The Wikipedia Bomb

I had another random walk through Wikipedia today, and I noticed something that I hadn't been paying attention to before:

Even some of the longest and most detailed articles made specific claims that could not be checked because there were no references.

I'm willing to bet that there are lots of articles in Wikipedia that refer to famous people who never existed, historical events that never happened, places in the world that don't exist, definitions for words that have been made up, devices that were never invented, artistic works that were never created and so on. All with references to books and literature that don't exist, and to webpages that never were.

The possibilities for someone to fabricate all of the above on Wikipedia are immense. Sure, you can watch for vandalism. Maybe you can correct gross mistakes but what about encyclopedic fraud? How do you find out the ingenius hoaxers? They've managed it with newspapers and books, but wikipedia is copied, quoted and scraped far and wide - what do you think are the chances?

Has anyone considered this?

I'll make my prediction: the next big scandal of Wikipedia will be the discovery of an article containing a plausible story of something that never happened but which people will believe and quote, until someone actually does the background checking. The fake article will actually provoke a real conflagration which will continue even after the hoax has been revealed. The person who does the checking will be disbelieved, because the lie is so compellingly plausible.

The historical precedent for this would be "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

Wikipedia is a bomb waiting to go off. It can be only a matter of time.
 
Diamond said:
Sorry about this: I'm not fixated by Wikipedia, I just tend to follow through subjects to their natural conclusion.

....

Wikipedia is a bomb waiting to go off. It can be only a matter of time.
Click to expand...
And your solution is????
 
Diamond said:
...but what about encyclopedic fraud? How do you find out the ingenius hoaxers? They've managed it with newspapers and books, but wikipedia is copied, quoted and scraped far and wide - what do you think are the chances?

Has anyone considered this?
Click to expand...

Hmm... Y'know, I haven't pulled anything like that since my "research" paper as a high school senior. Wonder if I've still got it in me?
 
What exactly is so dangerous about his post? Are people going to trample eahother to death trying to log off of Wikipedia?
 
There is something called a social contract. Some decide to abide by it and some don't. I get on a subway with hundreds of people everyday under the assumption that nobody brought a bomb on board. Maybe one day somebody will, but I won't change my commute over this.

Obviously that's a more extreme example, but I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Wikipedia is inerrant or anything close to it, but I hardly think that detracts from its usefulness as a somewhat realtime source for information. I'll continue to use it (sparingly) even after Diamonds prediction comes true.
 
My model for Wikipedia isn't some great and noble enterprise...but Winston Smith

In the novel "1984" Winston Smith works for the "Ministry of Truth" (the propaganda arm of the Party, in other words) . He creates an entire biography of a "hero of the Party" and plausibly stitches it into the Official History of Oceania, complete with biographical flourishes like the young age in which the "hero" denounces his relatives to the Thought Police, his military history and his heroic demise in some remote battlefield.

All fake. And part of the rich history of the Revolution. Completely uncheckable, with no citations or anything that can plausibly be done to verify it.

Darat wrote on skepticsrock:

Actually when you think about it wikipedia could easily be subverted by "the enemy" - some country could easily employ a few hundred or even a few thousand people full time to start adding, deleting and altering content and totally undermine any credibility.
Click to expand...

That's one way to destroy Wikipedia, but if you ran a totalitarian or repressive regime you wouldn't want to be so obvious...you'd want to subvert it slowly, carefully and most of all, plausibly.

Hammy, why is a speculation of mine "like shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theater"? If I were to suggest that its possible to write a virus that destroys data on a cellular phone network using a particular easy method am I "shouting 'Fire'"?
 
Diamond said:
My model for Wikipedia isn't some great and noble enterprise...but Winston Smith
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should worry about the net .. screw Wiki. Any one who would use it -- Wiki and for matter most of the net -- as primary source is nuts.

Hammy, why is a speculation of mine "like shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theater"? If I were to suggest that its possible to write a virus that destroys data on a cellular phone network using a particular easy method am I "shouting 'Fire'"?
Click to expand...
This is another thread where you vociferously attack Wiki -- certainly you're free to do so -- but seem to think the solution is to get rid of it. Maybe you're right, yet agendas are usually found underlying such attacks. What is yours? Let me guess ... "How To Serve Your Fellow Man"?

And go ahead, tell us all which particularly easy method of writing a virus to destroy data on a cellular phone network you advocate.
 
hammegk said:
This is another thread where you vociferously attack Wiki -- certainly you're free to do so -- but seem to think the solution is to get rid of it. Maybe you're right, yet agendas are usually found underlying such attacks. What is yours? Let me guess ... "How To Serve Your Fellow Man"?
Click to expand...

Nice straw man. Where have I advocated that the Wikipedia be "got rid of"?

To describe a problem is not necessarily to advocate that the source of the problem "be got rid of", but that the issue be discussed. You have objections to all of this or is it your normal style to ascribe malevolent motives to people you feel unable to argue in a rational manner?

Of course I have an agenda, and it is "critical thinking and reasoned discourse are useful things to practice with others discussing interesting issues about the world around us".

It's a terrible agenda, I know. Someone should inform the authorities.
 
Diamond said:
Of course I have an agenda, and it is "critical thinking and reasoned discourse are useful things to practice with others discussing interesting issues about the world around us".
Click to expand...
True, but that and a cup of warm spit accomplish about the same thing in real life -- in case you hadn't noticed how life actually works -- assuming anybody actually buys that as your agenda re Wiki, and takes your words as "critical thinking and reasoned discourse".


It's a terrible agenda, I know. Someone should inform the authorities.
Click to expand...
I thought you already were Chik'nLittle in this scenario.


I ask again, what is your solution to this terrible problem you continue to harp on? Er, yeah I know ... more "critical thinking and reasoned discourse".
 
First, any article, whether it's from the Encyclopedia Britanica or the Weekly World News, which doesn't give references for where it obtained its facts is automatically suspect and should at least be questioned.

Second, I don't remember Wikipedia ever claiming to be the authority that others seem to think it is claiming to be.

The Wikipedia bashing that seems to be in fashion now comes down to one fundamental bit of advice: Don't believe everything you read. It isn't a new problem.

I suspect the result of your "Wikipedia Bomb" is, at worst, going to be a few high profile people being publicly embarrassed for not checking their facts. It's happened before and it will happen again, with or without Wikipedia.

The root problem is a lack of critical thinking, not a flaw in Wikipedia's model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom