4 ms·

This is really terrifying. Imagine what governments and elites could do across generations if they can popularize belief & debate over entrenched hoax articles

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

This is really terrifying. Imagine what governments and elites could do across generations if they can popularize belief & debate over entrenched hoax articles that shape debate over geopolitics.

galaxyLogic 7y ago
Yes, see https://www.dw.com/en/putin-proposes-to-replace-wikipedia-with-reliable-russian-version/a-51127214 https://www.dw.com/en/putin-proposes-to-replace-wikipedia-wi...
- dmix 7y ago
  Much like the Russian newspapers I don't think this will be taken very seriously as a source like Wikipedia... the only reason this might be 'scary' is how Wikipedia gives them credibility. Russia creating a propaganda site provides none of that.
Karunamon 7y ago
In this case I wouldn't worry too much. If you look through those hoax articles, you'll notice that almost all of them barely qualify as stubs (very short) and have few-to-no citations or incoming links. The fact that they survived so long is probably due to the fact Wikipedia is huge and simply nobody noticed them. What good is propaganda if unseen?
- dontbenebby 7y ago
  You can look up the traffic to a page: http://stats.grok.se/ http://stats.grok.se/ It'd be interesting to write a crawler to look for "stubbish" articles then checks if they're widely read, then flags a human if so.
ajross 7y ago
It's happening already. I've found people on this very website who continue to cite Pizzagate and Qanon. Something like a third of the US voting public simply doesn't trust sources like Wikipedia at all, and can be fed whatever someone dreams up as long as it's sold well.
- pushpop 7y ago
  I’m the U.K., most of the arguments made against the EU were either not related to the EU or even completely made up.
  - pushpop 7y ago
    Cheers whoever downvoted this and couldn’t be bothered to reply but it’s the truth. Independent watchdogs and researchers alike have all found faults with the leave campaign. Most of the what Boris says about the EU is horseshit; from fish packaging to the infamous “straight banana” legislation - none of it was true. Even the 350m figure he plastered on a bus was found to be false (actual amount is much less). Theres even been a term coined to describe such hoaxes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I'm more concerned by often concerted efforts to get corporate and personal pages to reflect the image they want to project, rather than the actuality. A hoax may be widely believed, but at least it can be fact checked. Lots of individual controversies seem to tone down to pretty uncontroversial and a few disappear altogether. I don't think there's an easy solution, especially when it may often involve those who can simply throw more people at the problem until it goes away...

This is really terrifying. Imagine what governments and elites could do across generations if they can popularize belief & debate over entrenched hoax articles that shape debate over geopolitics.

galaxyLogic 7y ago

Yes, see https://www.dw.com/en/putin-proposes-to-replace-wikipedia-with-reliable-russian-version/a-51127214 https://www.dw.com/en/putin-proposes-to-replace-wikipedia-wi...

dmix 7y ago
Much like the Russian newspapers I don't think this will be taken very seriously as a source like Wikipedia... the only reason this might be 'scary' is how Wikipedia gives them credibility. Russia creating a propaganda site provides none of that.

Karunamon 7y ago

In this case I wouldn't worry too much. If you look through those hoax articles, you'll notice that almost all of them barely qualify as stubs (very short) and have few-to-no citations or incoming links. The fact that they survived so long is probably due to the fact Wikipedia is huge and simply nobody noticed them. What good is propaganda if unseen?

dontbenebby 7y ago
You can look up the traffic to a page: http://stats.grok.se/ http://stats.grok.se/ It'd be interesting to write a crawler to look for "stubbish" articles then checks if they're widely read, then flags a human if so.

ajross 7y ago

It's happening already. I've found people on this very website who continue to cite Pizzagate and Qanon. Something like a third of the US voting public simply doesn't trust sources like Wikipedia at all, and can be fed whatever someone dreams up as long as it's sold well.

pushpop 7y ago
I’m the U.K., most of the arguments made against the EU were either not related to the EU or even completely made up.
- pushpop 7y ago
  Cheers whoever downvoted this and couldn’t be bothered to reply but it’s the truth. Independent watchdogs and researchers alike have all found faults with the leave campaign. Most of the what Boris says about the EU is horseshit; from fish packaging to the infamous “straight banana” legislation - none of it was true. Even the 350m figure he plastered on a bus was found to be false (actual amount is much less). Theres even been a term coined to describe such hoaxes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

I'm more concerned by often concerted efforts to get corporate and personal pages to reflect the image they want to project, rather than the actuality. A hoax may be widely believed, but at least it can be fact checked. Lots of individual controversies seem to tone down to pretty uncontroversial and a few disappear altogether. I don't think there's an easy solution, especially when it may often involve those who can simply throw more people at the problem until it goes away...