It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 15 Biggest Wikipedia Blunders

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Here at ATS, we have big concerns about what is truth and what an unreliable source containing misinformation (at least I hope this is the case). I find it disturbing to see the division between facts and wiki, that the online editable virtual paper holds more weight than an actual encyclopedia or dictionary. These days they've implimented a colorful coding system to try to distinguish various "levels of truth"? Ladies and gentlemen, let us use our minds, cross-references, use reliable sources and above all "deny ignorance".

"1. Robbie Williams eats domestic pets in pubs for money.

To be fair, we can't disprove this statement, which popped up on the singer's Wikipedia page in 2006. But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

2. David Beckham was a Chinese goalkeeper in the 18th century.

And you thought scoring Posh Spice was impressive.

3. Paul Reiser's dead.

If you fell for this 2008 Wikipedia hoax, well -- let's just say I'm not so mad about you.

4. Sinbad's dead.

Couldn't tell ya what he's actually doing these days, but contrary to a 2007 Wikipedia claim, Sinbad is still around.

5. Sergey Brin's sexy, dating Jimmy Wales, and dead.

The Google god's Wikipedia page has seen more changes than his company's seen betas. Remarks on Sergey Brin's bio have claimed he's gay and dating Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales; he's dead, having ended his life in Moscow; and he's "sexy."

(I'll leave the judgment on the last one up to you.)

6. Tony Blair worships Hitler.

The former British prime minister was a regular target for Wikipedia tampering. That's what we read on Wikipedia, anyway.

7. The Duchess of Cornwall's Christian name is Cow-miller.

Anyone else suddenly have a hankering for a hamburger?

8. The University of Cincinnati's former president is a whore.

Former University of Cincinnati president Nancy Zimpher was listed as a "prostitute" and a "witch" on her Wikipedia page. Good thing it wasn't true, as that would make for one dangerous combination.

9. Robert Byrd's dead.

United States Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was pronounced dead by Wikipedia in January of this year. The senator was resurrected by a Wikipedia correction a short time later.

10. Ted Kennedy died in January.

Months before this week's news that Ted Kennedy had passed away, his Wikipedia page reported his death. The entry said Kennedy had died following his seizure at January's presidential inauguration.

11. John Seigenthaler helped assassinate John and Robert Kennedy.

The retired journalist wrote a full editorial about his Wikipedia ordeal, in which he was accused of being somehow involved in the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy. The errant info, Seigenthaler says, was on the site for four and a half months.

12. A yacht killed British TV presenter Vernon Kay.

That's a rough way to go. Especially when it never happened.

13. Conan O'Brien assaults sea turtles while canoeing.

Stephen Colbert was to blame for this hoax. I can't decide which is more unbelievable: that Conan assaulted a sea turtle, or that he went canoeing.

14. British TV gardener Alan Titchmarsh published a new version of the Kama Sutra.

He did, however, slap stickers on a bikini model for ratings.

15. Sienna Miller has modeled nude." www.thestandard.com...

Crossreferences:
www.pcworld.com...
www.itworld.com...

Sites that seem to be good on fact finding are:

www.snopes.com...

www.politifact.com...


[edit on 7-9-2009 by saint4God]




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Too many people use Wikipedia and it's bad. A friend of mine managed to create a page on there which was an entry about one of our friends claiming all sorts of nonsense. Just the fact that it can be edited by the public relatively easily should ring alarm bells yet it is still worshipped by many.

Probably a very helpful tool in terms of manipulating people's opinions and controlling the stream of knowledge but no good for use as a valid source or reference.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I think it's relatively easy to find the source for any statements made on wiki. (see superscript number) If it isn't a good source, don't use it. If there's no source, don't use it.

It still is the best place to start for virtually any subject out there.


I'm pretty sure most of the statements made in the OP have been taken off wiki.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I think it's relatively easy to find the source for any statements made on wiki. (see superscript number) If it isn't a good source, don't use it. If there's no source, don't use it.


The problem is that many people are not so discerning. They read it and accept it as truth without a great deal of questioning. Additionally, some of the sources 'sound good' so there's another level of the onion to peel.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
It still is the best place to start for virtually any subject out there.


I hope others examine information as closely as you do, then perhaps it can be used properly as a tool.


Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I'm pretty sure most of the statements made in the OP have been taken off wiki.


I hope so. I haven't checked but bad press usually makes for immediate action.



new topics

top topics
 
6

log in

join