4 ms·

How 5-year Wikipedia hoax fooled even the subject's own company

66 points by zach 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago
I think it also happens in subtle ways with changing knowledge. I recently got done with "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford. Looking at the Mongol entries in Wikipedia, I wonder how much is sourced from European sources using Mongols as a political statement against their own rulers and how much is taken from documents that came available in the last 15 years.
olliesaunders 16y ago
How many hundreds (thousands?) of other articles like this are sitting out in the Wiki-ether right now, wreaking havoc and just waiting to be debunked? Don't think this is new. For all of history there have been pervaders of disinformation. The only difference now is the media with which it is distributed.
- cema 16y ago
  Another difference is the low barrier to entry for editing. This, I think, is a more important difference because it not only leads to much faster corrections but also allows almost anyone to participate (in most cases).
- tokenadult 16y ago
  Yes. Bruce Schneier has been warning about semantic attacks on the Web since before Wikipedia was founded. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0010.html http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0010.html
InclinedPlane 16y ago
These sorts of things are actually good, and a reason to continue using wikipedia in preference to other sources. Here's the horrible truth: no other encyclopedia is any more accurate. However, if by using a "professionally edited" encyclopedia you are lulled into a false sense of trust then you are at a disadvantage. If instead you use an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone and everyone on the internet, perhaps you will retain your senses of judgment and critical thinking. Perhaps you will double-check "facts" that seem a little fishy. That, ultimately, is why wikipedia is a better source of information in the long run. Any source of information compiled by any group of people will be full of biases and errors. It's infinitely more important that the public become more savvy information consumers, improving their critical thinking abilities, than that any given source of information is incrementally more "accurate" than another.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Indeed, it's somewhat disconcerting the extent to which people don't apply similar skepticism to other sources. There's a lot of people who say you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because it's just edited by people on the internet, and then they'll go read one single book by an "expert" on a subject, and assume they now have a correct view of the subject. In many cases, when reading one book, even by an expert, you've gotten a much more biased view of the subject than Wikipedia, because nobody makes a name for themselves by writing a book that regurgitates the neutral consensus. A new book by a historian, for example, will frequently make controversial new claims, which may or may not end up being accepted by other historians in the long run.
- spxdcz 16y ago
  In some ways I agree with this sentiment, but in others I think it's deeply flawed. Your argument relies on a couple of deep assumptions, the main one being that the general public know how Wikipedia is made. Based on my (albeit anecdotal) evidence, I suspect that the vast majority of internet users (non-technical) may not know much at all about Wikipedia. They just look something up on the internet, find it on something that calls itself an 'encyclopedia', and believe it. They know nothing of who has created the page, or the checks (or lack thereof) that go into each page. Search for a random subject on Google - e.g. 'Canada', and click on the first result (Wikipedia, of course). How would any user know about the methodology behind this encyclopedia? Twice on the page it refers to itself (prominently) as "The Free Encyclopedia" - to me, as a non-technical user, that might sound like a reliable (albeit free) source of information?
  - tzs 16y ago
    I don't think there is any need to distinguish between technical and non-technical users. Both generally just go by what is on the page rather than checking the references.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- byrneseyeview 16y ago
dkarl 16y ago
Wait, he's using an ad campaign as proof that somebody believed this stuff. Read his links. I don't think the ad company was fooled. They wrote, "As Wikipedia will attest to, it's all true – even Freed's inflatable shrimp trap." They just liked the article and didn't see any reason to correct it.
scott_s 16y ago
Be skeptical of your sources, always, but keep in mind that the more heavily visited pages that are about more well-known subjects and some people consider important are going to have more educated eyeballs checking them. For example, I don't think an obviously made up "fact" would last very long on the page for red-black trees.
- gurtwo 16y ago
  Exactly. The whole story only proves no one really cared about the Julius Freed article in the first place.
sliverstorm 16y ago
Wait, I'm seeing a connection here. I can just hear it... "Some say... that he invented a tiny shower suited for pigeons. All we know, is he's called The Stig!"
gojomo 16y ago
Have possible links between prankster Joe Cassara and ad firm space150 been investigated?
- audionerd 16y ago
  Ken Jennings, in his follow-up post, says: "They had no connection with the original hoaxer" http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=1900 http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=1900
araneae 16y ago
This reminds me of some unintentional errors. Neil Gaiman recently noticed something on Wikipedia that he had made up in a novel being treated like fact. http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-one-wondering.html http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-o...
Confusion 16y ago
Note that it wasn't actually "the subject's own company' that was fooled. It was the PR department of the company that had acquired the subject's own company. Why they wouldn't just ask them about noteworthy inventions instead of using wikipedia, or at least verify with them, is beyond me.
audionerd 16y ago
Ken Jennings posted a follow-up: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397287 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397287 Turns out DQ did know the Wikipedia entry was false, but still liked the concept of some of the far-out claims, and wrote a script around them.

66 points by zach 16y ago

I think it also happens in subtle ways with changing knowledge. I recently got done with "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford. Looking at the Mongol entries in Wikipedia, I wonder how much is sourced from European sources using Mongols as a political statement against their own rulers and how much is taken from documents that came available in the last 15 years.

olliesaunders 16y ago

How many hundreds (thousands?) of other articles like this are sitting out in the Wiki-ether right now, wreaking havoc and just waiting to be debunked? Don't think this is new. For all of history there have been pervaders of disinformation. The only difference now is the media with which it is distributed.

cema 16y ago
Another difference is the low barrier to entry for editing. This, I think, is a more important difference because it not only leads to much faster corrections but also allows almost anyone to participate (in most cases).
tokenadult 16y ago
Yes. Bruce Schneier has been warning about semantic attacks on the Web since before Wikipedia was founded. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0010.html http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0010.html

InclinedPlane 16y ago

These sorts of things are actually good, and a reason to continue using wikipedia in preference to other sources. Here's the horrible truth: no other encyclopedia is any more accurate. However, if by using a "professionally edited" encyclopedia you are lulled into a false sense of trust then you are at a disadvantage. If instead you use an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone and everyone on the internet, perhaps you will retain your senses of judgment and critical thinking. Perhaps you will double-check "facts" that seem a little fishy. That, ultimately, is why wikipedia is a better source of information in the long run. Any source of information compiled by any group of people will be full of biases and errors. It's infinitely more important that the public become more savvy information consumers, improving their critical thinking abilities, than that any given source of information is incrementally more "accurate" than another.

_delirium 16y ago
Indeed, it's somewhat disconcerting the extent to which people don't apply similar skepticism to other sources. There's a lot of people who say you shouldn't trust Wikipedia because it's just edited by people on the internet, and then they'll go read one single book by an "expert" on a subject, and assume they now have a correct view of the subject. In many cases, when reading one book, even by an expert, you've gotten a much more biased view of the subject than Wikipedia, because nobody makes a name for themselves by writing a book that regurgitates the neutral consensus. A new book by a historian, for example, will frequently make controversial new claims, which may or may not end up being accepted by other historians in the long run.
spxdcz 16y ago
In some ways I agree with this sentiment, but in others I think it's deeply flawed. Your argument relies on a couple of deep assumptions, the main one being that the general public know how Wikipedia is made. Based on my (albeit anecdotal) evidence, I suspect that the vast majority of internet users (non-technical) may not know much at all about Wikipedia. They just look something up on the internet, find it on something that calls itself an 'encyclopedia', and believe it. They know nothing of who has created the page, or the checks (or lack thereof) that go into each page. Search for a random subject on Google - e.g. 'Canada', and click on the first result (Wikipedia, of course). How would any user know about the methodology behind this encyclopedia? Twice on the page it refers to itself (prominently) as "The Free Encyclopedia" - to me, as a non-technical user, that might sound like a reliable (albeit free) source of information?
- tzs 16y ago
  I don't think there is any need to distinguish between technical and non-technical users. Both generally just go by what is on the page rather than checking the references.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
byrneseyeview 16y ago

dkarl 16y ago

Wait, he's using an ad campaign as proof that somebody believed this stuff. Read his links. I don't think the ad company was fooled. They wrote, "As Wikipedia will attest to, it's all true – even Freed's inflatable shrimp trap." They just liked the article and didn't see any reason to correct it.

scott_s 16y ago

Be skeptical of your sources, always, but keep in mind that the more heavily visited pages that are about more well-known subjects and some people consider important are going to have more educated eyeballs checking them. For example, I don't think an obviously made up "fact" would last very long on the page for red-black trees.

gurtwo 16y ago
Exactly. The whole story only proves no one really cared about the Julius Freed article in the first place.

sliverstorm 16y ago

Wait, I'm seeing a connection here. I can just hear it... "Some say... that he invented a tiny shower suited for pigeons. All we know, is he's called The Stig!"

gojomo 16y ago

Have possible links between prankster Joe Cassara and ad firm space150 been investigated?

audionerd 16y ago
Ken Jennings, in his follow-up post, says: "They had no connection with the original hoaxer" http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=1900 http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=1900

araneae 16y ago

This reminds me of some unintentional errors. Neil Gaiman recently noticed something on Wikipedia that he had made up in a novel being treated like fact. http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-one-wondering.html http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/one-book-one-twitter-o...

Confusion 16y ago

Note that it wasn't actually "the subject's own company' that was fooled. It was the PR department of the company that had acquired the subject's own company. Why they wouldn't just ask them about noteworthy inventions instead of using wikipedia, or at least verify with them, is beyond me.

audionerd 16y ago

Ken Jennings posted a follow-up: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397287 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397287 Turns out DQ did know the Wikipedia entry was false, but still liked the concept of some of the far-out claims, and wrote a script around them.