5 ms·

Given that almost all sources that constitute verifiability will happily copy and paste anything that is in wikipedia, it is arbitrary what is verifiable. If i

by 1ris 9y ago

Given that almost all sources that constitute verifiability will happily copy and paste anything that is in wikipedia, it is arbitrary what is verifiable. If is long enouh in there it will never get out. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-a-raccoon-became...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jabretti 9y ago
It's possible nowadays with a bit of effort to create entirely new "facts" via a one-two shuffle between news sources and Wikipedia. First, you publish an article on some news source, asserting the fact. Then you update Wikipedia with that fact, citing your own article. Other news sources check Wikipedia, find your new fact, and incorporate it into their own articles. Now you have a bunch of extra sources for your Wikipedia article.
- merlincorey 9y ago
  This is called Circular Reporting[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    And the requisite xkcd joke, in which it is called citogenesis. (Not to be confused with cytogenesis.) https://m.xkcd.com/978/ https://m.xkcd.com/978/
    - falcor84 9y ago
      And, of course, this then made its way to Wikipedia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...
  - qubex 9y ago
    Well played, sir.
- snori74 9y ago
  Except that any reputable "news source" won't let random people post stories with made up facts - and Wikipedia editors will shoot down disreputable sources such as your personal own blog.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    Yes, but you just need it to survive long enough to get quoted somewhere more reputable.
boomlinde 9y ago
The brazilian aardvark is an interesting example because it created a genuine fact. It is now also known as the brazilian Aardvark with no caveats. It is more concerning if this happens with statements that aren't as self fulfilling. For example, saying that Elvis is alive to enough people doesn't somehow make it so.

by 1ris 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jabretti 9y ago

It's possible nowadays with a bit of effort to create entirely new "facts" via a one-two shuffle between news sources and Wikipedia. First, you publish an article on some news source, asserting the fact. Then you update Wikipedia with that fact, citing your own article. Other news sources check Wikipedia, find your new fact, and incorporate it into their own articles. Now you have a bunch of extra sources for your Wikipedia article.

merlincorey 9y ago
This is called Circular Reporting[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  And the requisite xkcd joke, in which it is called citogenesis. (Not to be confused with cytogenesis.) https://m.xkcd.com/978/ https://m.xkcd.com/978/
  - falcor84 9y ago
    And, of course, this then made its way to Wikipedia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...
- qubex 9y ago
  Well played, sir.
snori74 9y ago
Except that any reputable "news source" won't let random people post stories with made up facts - and Wikipedia editors will shoot down disreputable sources such as your personal own blog.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Yes, but you just need it to survive long enough to get quoted somewhere more reputable.

boomlinde 9y ago

The brazilian aardvark is an interesting example because it created a genuine fact. It is now also known as the brazilian Aardvark with no caveats. It is more concerning if this happens with statements that aren't as self fulfilling. For example, saying that Elvis is alive to enough people doesn't somehow make it so.