3 ms·

From my understanding this is also sometimes a method used to get fake info on Wikipedia. Get the fake info on a secondary source, then cite that on Wikipedia.

by Fogest 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago
There's an XKCD cartoon in that vein. Best to get it in print somewhere but getting information onto what is a plausibly credible source is better than nothing with respect to getting it into Wikipedia via a citation.
wlonkly 3y ago
For extra irony, get the fake info into Wikipedia long enough that someone uses it, and then use what they wrote as a source to put it into Wikipedia. (There's a WP: page about this problem that I think gives it a name, but I can't find it right now.) Aha, someone else mentioned it in these comments: "citogenesis", and it was indeed Randall Munroe's coining, and the meta page is https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_in...
- ghaff 3y ago
  And it's not just a Wikipedia thing. When I was researching a book a number of years back I found some fairly consistently repeated origin stories which, if you went back to some older books, basically weren't the whole story.
- Fogest 3y ago
  I've seen this kind of stuff used in some activist style groups as well before. Someone may be trying to push some kind of agenda. While in an argument with someone they link to a Wikipedia article. That Wikipedia articles source ends up linking to the activist groups own site. That site then links to some kind of sketchy or very broad conclusion piece of "research" that is unreproducable. So I feel like Wikipedia's rule don't necessarily make their content any more reliable. It just adds a step if you're looking to push some kind of biased/iffy opinion onto a page.
andrewaylett 3y ago
Definitely, but that's what it means to be an encyclopædia. Wikipedia is very definitely relying on foundations that are shakier than anyone expected when the project was started -- but still (at least in my opinion) firm enough to build something net positive.

From my understanding this is also sometimes a method used to get fake info on Wikipedia. Get the fake info on a secondary source, then cite that on Wikipedia.

by Fogest 3y ago

From my understanding this is also sometimes a method used to get fake info on Wikipedia. Get the fake info on a secondary source, then cite that on Wikipedia.

ghaff 3y ago

There's an XKCD cartoon in that vein. Best to get it in print somewhere but getting information onto what is a plausibly credible source is better than nothing with respect to getting it into Wikipedia via a citation.

wlonkly 3y ago

For extra irony, get the fake info into Wikipedia long enough that someone uses it, and then use what they wrote as a source to put it into Wikipedia. (There's a WP: page about this problem that I think gives it a name, but I can't find it right now.) Aha, someone else mentioned it in these comments: "citogenesis", and it was indeed Randall Munroe's coining, and the meta page is https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_in...

ghaff 3y ago
And it's not just a Wikipedia thing. When I was researching a book a number of years back I found some fairly consistently repeated origin stories which, if you went back to some older books, basically weren't the whole story.
Fogest 3y ago
I've seen this kind of stuff used in some activist style groups as well before. Someone may be trying to push some kind of agenda. While in an argument with someone they link to a Wikipedia article. That Wikipedia articles source ends up linking to the activist groups own site. That site then links to some kind of sketchy or very broad conclusion piece of "research" that is unreproducable. So I feel like Wikipedia's rule don't necessarily make their content any more reliable. It just adds a step if you're looking to push some kind of biased/iffy opinion onto a page.

andrewaylett 3y ago

Definitely, but that's what it means to be an encyclopædia. Wikipedia is very definitely relying on foundations that are shakier than anyone expected when the project was started -- but still (at least in my opinion) firm enough to build something net positive.