7 ms·

Can you provide an example?

by jahnu 9mo ago

sigmoid10 9mo ago
They probably mean people like Robert Malone [1], who - despite being well accomplished in a related field - spread verifiably wrong information about vaccines on social media during the pandemic. There are many people like him who showed past accomplishments in a related field, but were totally out of their depth when interviewed about covid on the Joe Rogan podcast or similar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone
- nephihaha 9mo ago
  Yet in officialdom, that kind of thing was perfectly acceptable. In Scotland we had a dentist running Covid lockdown, which is ironic since public dental services were decimated by it and never recovered.
brigandish 9mo ago
You can simply do a Wikipedia search for "misinformation doctor" and get plenty of results, even with its search system, let alone if you use a search engine to power the search. I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited. Do you have some better reason to want a particular name?
- qudade 9mo ago
  If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.
  - hagbard_c 9mo ago
    Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.
    - komali2 9mo ago
      If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus. I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
      - brigandish 9mo ago
        My go-to example is the "Constitution" of Medina[1] > It is widely considered to be one of the first written constitutions of mankind. Now go to the page on constitutions in history[2] and see how far down the list that one is. Now go back to the Constitution of Medina (itself an example of misinformation, since it should be charter or even more precisely, treaty, but those protecting the page have meddled with the title too) and look at the reference it uses[3] and what it says to get a feel for the kind of "reference" that is being used there, and then try and update said Wikipedia page by removing the parts about its being the first. The talk pages of both show that invested groups have been trying to force their views, and they've done it quite successfully. Let us all know how you get on with that, and then I'll point you to the next example, and the next example… Some other notable things to check are co-founder Larry Sanger's 9 theses[4], and the news that broke yesterday about a PR firm doing "Wikilaundering"[5]. That's just the tip of the iceberg. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_devel... [3] https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-world-important-document-prophet%E2%80%99s-time-study-dr-muhammad https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-w... [4] https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-by-consensus https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-b... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-portland-accused-of-commissioning-favourable-changes-to-wikipedia-pages https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-p...
        9mo ago
  - nephihaha 9mo ago
    "If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected." It depends on its nature.
  - brigandish 9mo ago
    I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Have you ever tried changing something on Wikipedia regarding politics (which now includes several health issues) or religion? Edit: also, I did write "I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited." and yet you're suggesting I get into that argument. I quite clearly don't want to because it's pointless, and we had years of it anyway.
    - Gander5739 9mo ago
      > I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Please do.
      - brigandish 9mo ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426
        Gander5739 9mo ago
        Responded there.
whynotmaybe 9mo ago
Dr Raoult was very vocal in France about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid 19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult It seems today that he was just wrong and used to make "dubious" clinical trials. > As of 2025, 46 of Raoult's research publications have been retracted, and at least another 218 of his publications have received an expression of concern from their publishers, due to questions related to ethics approval for his studies.
- thrance 9mo ago
  In this case, he was actually spreading misinformation. Anyone with two braincells could see it at the time.
  - whynotmaybe 9mo ago
    > Anyone with two braincells could see it at the time. It seems a captain obvious now but it wasn't so at the time. (Or maybe my.braincells.count() < 2) Many people listened because he wasn't some youtuber doing his research, he was the head of the "Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases Research Unit" ad the Faculty of Medicine of Marseille. I've watched one of his interviews where he stated that people survived in his unit with hydroxychloroquine and that he had numbers to prove it. When you look at his credentials, and my.braincells.count(), it was hard to identify it as misinformation.
    - thrance 9mo ago
      I definitely exaggerated with my "two braincells". Even the french president said about the guy "we need more people like him" (although I wouldn't say he's that smart himself...). But even without being knowledgeable about statistics, there were a lot of very serious people giving very good arguments against his results. You just had to see them. And seeing all the Facebook doctors lunatics instantly side with Raoult and defend him tooth and nail should definitely raise some red flags...
- agumonkey 9mo ago
  Raoult's case is so strange.. he's not the usual fringe doctor, up until covid, he had a center seat in national health institution and everybody around him was listening. I still don't get why nobody was wary of him there..

Can you provide an example?

by jahnu 9mo ago

Can you provide an example?

They probably mean people like Robert Malone [1], who - despite being well accomplished in a related field - spread verifiably wrong information about vaccines on social media during the pandemic. There are many people like him who showed past accomplishments in a related field, but were totally out of their depth when interviewed about covid on the Joe Rogan podcast or similar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

nephihaha 9mo ago
Yet in officialdom, that kind of thing was perfectly acceptable. In Scotland we had a dentist running Covid lockdown, which is ironic since public dental services were decimated by it and never recovered.

brigandish 9mo ago

You can simply do a Wikipedia search for "misinformation doctor" and get plenty of results, even with its search system, let alone if you use a search engine to power the search. I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited. Do you have some better reason to want a particular name?

qudade 9mo ago
If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.
- hagbard_c 9mo ago
  Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.
  - komali2 9mo ago
    If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus. I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
    - brigandish 9mo ago
      My go-to example is the "Constitution" of Medina[1] > It is widely considered to be one of the first written constitutions of mankind. Now go to the page on constitutions in history[2] and see how far down the list that one is. Now go back to the Constitution of Medina (itself an example of misinformation, since it should be charter or even more precisely, treaty, but those protecting the page have meddled with the title too) and look at the reference it uses[3] and what it says to get a feel for the kind of "reference" that is being used there, and then try and update said Wikipedia page by removing the parts about its being the first. The talk pages of both show that invested groups have been trying to force their views, and they've done it quite successfully. Let us all know how you get on with that, and then I'll point you to the next example, and the next example… Some other notable things to check are co-founder Larry Sanger's 9 theses[4], and the news that broke yesterday about a PR firm doing "Wikilaundering"[5]. That's just the tip of the iceberg. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_devel... [3] https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-world-important-document-prophet%E2%80%99s-time-study-dr-muhammad https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-w... [4] https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-by-consensus https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-b... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-portland-accused-of-commissioning-favourable-changes-to-wikipedia-pages https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-p...
      - 9mo ago
- nephihaha 9mo ago
  "If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected." It depends on its nature.
- brigandish 9mo ago
  I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Have you ever tried changing something on Wikipedia regarding politics (which now includes several health issues) or religion? Edit: also, I did write "I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited." and yet you're suggesting I get into that argument. I quite clearly don't want to because it's pointless, and we had years of it anyway.
  - Gander5739 9mo ago
    > I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff. Please do.
    - brigandish 9mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426
      - Gander5739 9mo ago
        Responded there.

whynotmaybe 9mo ago

Dr Raoult was very vocal in France about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid 19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult It seems today that he was just wrong and used to make "dubious" clinical trials. > As of 2025, 46 of Raoult's research publications have been retracted, and at least another 218 of his publications have received an expression of concern from their publishers, due to questions related to ethics approval for his studies.

thrance 9mo ago
In this case, he was actually spreading misinformation. Anyone with two braincells could see it at the time.
- whynotmaybe 9mo ago
  > Anyone with two braincells could see it at the time. It seems a captain obvious now but it wasn't so at the time. (Or maybe my.braincells.count() < 2) Many people listened because he wasn't some youtuber doing his research, he was the head of the "Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases Research Unit" ad the Faculty of Medicine of Marseille. I've watched one of his interviews where he stated that people survived in his unit with hydroxychloroquine and that he had numbers to prove it. When you look at his credentials, and my.braincells.count(), it was hard to identify it as misinformation.
  - thrance 9mo ago
    I definitely exaggerated with my "two braincells". Even the french president said about the guy "we need more people like him" (although I wouldn't say he's that smart himself...). But even without being knowledgeable about statistics, there were a lot of very serious people giving very good arguments against his results. You just had to see them. And seeing all the Facebook doctors lunatics instantly side with Raoult and defend him tooth and nail should definitely raise some red flags...
agumonkey 9mo ago
Raoult's case is so strange.. he's not the usual fringe doctor, up until covid, he had a center seat in national health institution and everybody around him was listening. I still don't get why nobody was wary of him there..