4 ms·
To be fair, it's not like the statement "called the Brazilian aardvark" is not true. If it looks like an Aardvark and someone calls it that, then it is called t
by cm2012 12y ago
To be fair, it's not like the statement "called the Brazilian aardvark" is not true. If it looks like an Aardvark and someone calls it that, then it is called the Brazilian Aardvark. There are many species of animals which are misnamed with regards to their taxonomy.
- acdha 12y agoIn standard usage you would only say it is called something if that were commonly used by many people. We don't update the encyclopedia every time the crank at your local coffee-shop comes up with a new pet phrase.
- cm2012 12y agoTrue, but there is nothing "wrong" with a fact like that proliferating, since it doesn't hurt scientific knowledge and people clearly like the name.
- anon4 12y agoWell, I've seen cats, dogs, shoes, streets, articles of clothing and abstracts concepts being called a "kajigger", but I'm not going to update the Wikipedia entry on felis catus to say "also known as kajigger". That would just be kajigger.
- fredup 12y agoJournalists have been, and continue to be the gatekeepers. In the days before Wikipedia it is easy to imagine a journalist visiting Brazil and talking with a friend in the local coffee shop about the raccoon-like creatures he just saw when the local crank slaps him on the back and tells him, "round here we call 'em Brazilian aardvarks." If the journalist believes him, you would see it in print. Now, with Wikipedia it is easier for the crank to get to the journalist. If the journalists had fact checked and never reprinted the "fact", it would have eventually been removed from the Wikipedia entry.