War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

All off topic conversation held here. Have fun and play nice. =)

Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi

Post Reply
User avatar
Fairportfan
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:14 am
Location: Atlanta (well, Gainesville)
Contact:

War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Fairportfan »

War is over: imaginary “Bicholim Conflict” page removed from Wikipedia after five years
Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News | The Sideshow wrote:A 17th Century international conflict has finally been laid to rest, nearly 400 years after it never happened. Wait a second. Are you feeling confused?

A fascinating new story in the Daily Dot chronicles how for more than five years, rogue editors on Wikipedia perpetuated a hoax about the “Bicholim Conflict,” a purely fictional historical event.

Before its eventual deletion, the 4,500-word page read in part:
“From 1640 to 1641 the might of colonial Portugal clashed with India's massive Maratha Empire in an undeclared war that would later be known as the Bicholim Conflict. Named after the northern Indian region where most of the fighting took place, the conflict ended with a peace treaty that would later help cement Goa as an independent Indian state.”
Amazingly, the article was even nominated for the site’s Featured Article of the Day, a Wikipedia stable that highlights some of the site’s best-researched and written articles.

The actual writer of the Wikipedia article is still unknown, but members of the Wikipedia community have narrowed down at least one suspect.

“Unfortunately, hoaxes on Wikipedia are nothing new, and the craftier they are, the more difficult it is to catch them,” William Beutler, president of Beutler Wiki Relations, a Wikipedia consulting firm, told Yahoo News. “Anyone who's clever enough to make up convincing sources and motivated enough to spend the time and skilled enough to write a plausible article can deceive whole Internet—at least for awhile.”

A December 2012 poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that Google and Wikipedia were the top two research tools used by U.S. middle and high school students.

To its credit, Wikipedia has its own page devoted to Wikipedia hoaxes. Some of the more noteworthy attempts include a page on a fictional conspirator in the assassination of Julius Caesar, a false claim of inspiration in the “Lord of the Rings” novels and a former Harvard student who for eight years successfully operated a Wikipedia page claiming he was the mayor of a small Chinese town.

Beutler, a longtime Wikipedia community editor himself, says he once helped remove a hoax article after its author contacted him in an attempt to boast of their prank.

And as Beutler notes, in many ways, Wikipedia is no different than the professional journalism world from which it culls so much of its source material. No single source is infallible, even to the watchful and detail oriented community of Wikpedia editors.

“There are the outliers in each: Jayson Blair for the New York Times, the ‘Bicholim conflict’ author on Wikipedia,” Beutler said. “Stephen Glass would have been a terrific Wikipedia hoaxer.”

Even stranger, while the fake article itself has been deleted, the Bicholim Conflict continues to haunt the halls of the Internet at large.

As the Daily Dot notes, several references to the Bicholim Conflict continue to exist online, with other web sites having copied and pasted the text verbatim. {see my note below - mw}

There’s even a book version of the fraudulent article available for sale on the [ur=http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bicholi ... 112329640l]Barnes and Noble website [/url]for $20 and credited to “authors” Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn. As the product’s one reviewer notes in their comment, “A copy of a hoax Wikipedia article (which you could have read for free) in printed form.”
Heh. The link to "other web sites" that have "... copied and pasted the text verbatim" now leads to this page:

Image
Not even duct tape can fix stupid. But it can muffle the noise.
=====================
Peace through superior firepower - ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead troublemaker.
=====================
mike weber
User avatar
Fairportfan
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:14 am
Location: Atlanta (well, Gainesville)
Contact:

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Fairportfan »

Comment in the Wikipedia thread referenced as spotting the author of the hoax:
Volunteer Marek wrote:This comment in that article: "Generally speaking I disregard the page that comes up - and go quickly down to the bibliography for some real sources." made me think of something - maybe it would be better to just have a source-o-pedia:

Article Title

Definition

Suggested sources your ass needs to look up your own damn self:
*Source 1
*Source 2
*Source 3

That's it. No "article" except the bare minimums, no folks writing crap and pontificating, no misuse of sources, just give the public what it really wants from Wikipedia, a useful bibliography. Of course got to have something like WP:RS and so on in there but this "less-is-better" approach might actually work... better.
Not even duct tape can fix stupid. But it can muffle the noise.
=====================
Peace through superior firepower - ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead troublemaker.
=====================
mike weber
User avatar
Fairportfan
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:14 am
Location: Atlanta (well, Gainesville)
Contact:

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Fairportfan »

Not even duct tape can fix stupid. But it can muffle the noise.
=====================
Peace through superior firepower - ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead troublemaker.
=====================
mike weber
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Atomic »

I'm reminded of the old Journalistic wheeze - If you mother says she loves you, check it out! The standard used to be at least two confirmed sources. Sites like Wikipedia provide decent information, but, as I understand it, it's level of proof is Links to sources. That is, if someone creates (or attributes) various falsehoods or deceptions, they collectively pass the "Somebody Said" test. This leaves them open to a lot of chicanery.

Some examples of the Somebody Said problem in the news -- A recent expose of psychological studies and their printed, peer reviewed results in recognized journals discovered many (one third or more of the studied articles) were simply false! They were based on other articles which themselves were faulty, deceptive, or simply hoaxes dressed in authoritative guise. Part of the discovery was a researcher who objected to another article which cited his work as affirmation, except his work entirely rejected what that article was proposing.

Another widely questionable act of journalism is Cherry Picking, where a premise is built on incomplete data, chosen to support the narrative. The magazine Mother Jones put out a claim that no mass murder had ever been interrupted by someone with a gun, and they listed a dozen or so events where 4 or more people had been killed. Note the 4 or more filter. Various blogs quickly pointed out the 4 or more limit was like testing weed killer but not counting where the weeds had been killed. They pointed out a dozen or so events where immediate armed response, by guards, off-duty police, and armed civilians, interrupted the shooter after less than 4 casualties, often with the shooter killing themselves. Sadly, this had not received the same media attention.

At any rate, everybody needs to know that crap sells, and Journalism is not the same as Reporting. A News organization can illustrate, educate, and illuminate. Or, it can remonstrate, prevaricate, and titillate. Sadly, one pays much better than the other, because that's what people will buy.

Caveat Emptor!
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
ShneekeyTheLost
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by ShneekeyTheLost »

And you wonder why I have no respect for people who just link a wiki article with nothing else to support it? Wiki might be used to find sources, but it should never, by itself, be a cited source. Ever.
Last edited by ShneekeyTheLost on Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fairportfan
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:14 am
Location: Atlanta (well, Gainesville)
Contact:

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Fairportfan »

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:And you wonder why I have no respect for people who just link a wiki article with nothing else to support it?
Would you have respect for someone who quoted only a Britannica article?

I figured you'd be here to ride your little hobbyhorse.
Not even duct tape can fix stupid. But it can muffle the noise.
=====================
Peace through superior firepower - ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead troublemaker.
=====================
mike weber
User avatar
Julie
Posts: 1607
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Julie »

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:And you wonder why I have no respect for people who just link a wiki article with nothing else to support it? Wiki might be used to find sources, but it should never, by itself, be a cited source. Ever.
But if it's okay to use Wikipedia to find sources, isn't linking to it a way of sharing multiple sources without having to create multiple links in a single post? I fully understand not using quotes from it in papers and what-have-you, but for the purposes of just referencing something in internet communications, I don't see the problem with linking to a Wikipedia article. I'd wager that if no links were provided, a large percentage of the internet world would look up foreign subject matters on Wikipedia...might as well provide the link and save them the trouble.
"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."
User avatar
Fairportfan
Posts: 3283
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:14 am
Location: Atlanta (well, Gainesville)
Contact:

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Fairportfan »

Julie wrote:
ShneekeyTheLost wrote:And you wonder why I have no respect for people who just link a wiki article with nothing else to support it? Wiki might be used to find sources, but it should never, by itself, be a cited source. Ever.
But if it's okay to use Wikipedia to find sources, isn't linking to it a way of sharing multiple sources without having to create multiple links in a single post? I fully understand not using quotes from it in papers and what-have-you, but for the purposes of just referencing something in internet communications, I don't see the problem with linking to a Wikipedia article. I'd wager that if no links were provided, a large percentage of the internet world would look up foreign subject matters on Wikipedia...might as well provide the link and save them the trouble.
Don't bother trying to use logic and reason against prejudice and intellectual arrogance.
Not even duct tape can fix stupid. But it can muffle the noise.
=====================
Peace through superior firepower - ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead troublemaker.
=====================
mike weber
User avatar
scantrontb
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:44 am

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by scantrontb »

Fairportfan wrote:Don't bother trying to use logic and reason against prejudice and intellectual arrogance.
how's that saying go: "don't confuse me with FACTS. my mind is ALREADY made up!"
Don't planto mihi adveho illac
ShneekeyTheLost
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by ShneekeyTheLost »

Julie wrote:
ShneekeyTheLost wrote:And you wonder why I have no respect for people who just link a wiki article with nothing else to support it? Wiki might be used to find sources, but it should never, by itself, be a cited source. Ever.
But if it's okay to use Wikipedia to find sources, isn't linking to it a way of sharing multiple sources without having to create multiple links in a single post? I fully understand not using quotes from it in papers and what-have-you, but for the purposes of just referencing something in internet communications, I don't see the problem with linking to a Wikipedia article. I'd wager that if no links were provided, a large percentage of the internet world would look up foreign subject matters on Wikipedia...might as well provide the link and save them the trouble.
And that's actually part of the problem with Wikipedia...

Sure, you can use it to find reputable sources. However, check your sources, because (as the linked article has shown) cited 'sources' on Wiki don't necessarily have to be viable.

The problem with the statement that a wiki article can be a way to share multiple sources is that not every one of those sources might even be relevant to the discussion at hand. Furthermore, the Wiki article may go well beyond the cited sources to make completely unsupported claims which the linked articles either don't speak on or directly contradict.

Looking something up on Wiki isn't a bad idea if you are wanting to get a broad overview and a place to get started. However, trying to cite it as a source is not a good idea. Ever.
User avatar
Kingmaker
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:21 am
Location: West Coast

Re: War that never happened finallyover after 400 years.

Post by Kingmaker »

[quote="ShneekeyTheLostLooking something up on Wiki isn't a bad idea if you are wanting to get a broad overview and a place to get
started. However, trying to cite it as a source is not a good idea. Ever.[/quote]

In my school you lose points for citing wikipedia. One of my professors would drop your assignement a full letter grade since it is not a peer reviewed source material or accepted.

That doesn't stop me from using it to find a good launchpad for other information (as you pointed out).

Who was it that said "Trust, but verify?" I think it was Reagan? >.>

According to a quick google search it was President Reagan.
"But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD"
1 Samuel 8:6

Sometimes being the Kingmaker is harder than it sounds, especially when people don't know what they are getting into.
Post Reply