17 ms·
The article claims this is an example of a falsehood starting on Wikipedia, percolating to external sources, then perpetuating on Wikipedia because it's in thos
by scott_s 12y ago
The article claims this is an example of a falsehood starting on Wikipedia, percolating to external sources, then perpetuating on Wikipedia because it's in those external sources. That's interesting.
But what's more interesting is that this may be an entirely different case: a falsehood starts on Wikipedia, percolates to external sources, and then becomes true because it is pervasive. Then it remains on Wikipedia because it is true. And that's only possible because informal names can be adopted, and hey, that thing does look like an aardvark. Nick names are sticky like that.
Of course, I don't know if this is the case. But I don't think this article acknowledges it as a possibility - and nor do I know enough about the informal names of this kind of raccoon.
- vanderZwan 12y agoIsn't that just social constructionism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
- Houshalter 12y agoPerhaps, but it's not what anyone actually calls them. I mean I doubt it's spread into anyone's common everyday language. All of the uses were likely just using Wikipedia as a reference for writing their article.
- taejo 12y agoI feel like there are actually quite a few things that many people know are "also known as", but nobody actually knows them as that. I've often read that chickpeas are also known as garbanzo beans, but I've never actually heard or read anyone calling them that (obviously in Spanish they're called garbanzos, but I mean English speakers speaking/writing in English). Similarly, do people really call a herd of boar a singularity, or do they just know that it's "called" a singularity.
- Houshalter 12y agoI think you're right, but personally I have heard the word "garbanzo beans" before. A boar singularity sounds cool.
- dsugarman 12y agois it an actual falsehood? it just says also called a Brazilian aardvark, which is true for at least one person in the world and became true for a lot more after reading it. it seems like the name stuck because people liked the name.
- reeses 12y agoIt's also more pronounceable and appetizing, like the chilean seabass.
- bediger4000 12y ago"Appetizing"? Brazilian Aardvark - it's what's for dinner!??!
- dllthomas 12y agoThough I don't think anyone is selling them to people trying to buy aardvarks.
- soperj 12y agoor kiwi fruit, no one was buying chinese gooseberries.
- baddox 12y agoStylistically it's a textbook example of weasel words, which are claims that appear to represent the views of an authoritative source but which don't cite such a source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words... The "by whom" tag should be added to these unsupported claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:By_whom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:By_whom
- netcan 12y agoI disagree. Weasel words are a way of introducing opinions disguised as facts while absolving yourself of the need to make a specific, verifiable (or falsifiable claim). "Some say Hacker News is the the most important website about startups." The actual information in that sentence is that 'some people say this thing' but it reads like 'this thing' which is misleading. It's misleading regardless of citations. There is nothing wrong with saying 'this thing' if that is what you mean to say. 'The Arripis is also known as the Australian Salmon' is a true and relevant statement. It's common for fish to have different names in scientific, culinary and angling contexts as well different places. Wikipedia needs to address that to be useful. That's the reason weasel words are a hard problem. It's subtle. Sometimes opinions are important and relevant and they should be included (with citations) on their own merit. "Commonly referred to as.." is an important fact about lots of animals. What this is is basically just a simple case of falsehood. Nobody called anything a Brazilian Aardvark at the time of the edit. It wasn't true. It's an interesting story because it became true. Every common name for an animal had to be invented at some point. Here, because of the magic of wikipedia' revision history we can see exactly when that happened.
- Grae 12y agoActually, the final paragraph of the article directly addresses this point: "Taxonomically speaking, this is unfortunate. The coati has no more relation to an aardvark than to any other vertebrate, so the name is misleading. But language, unlike taxonomy, is particularly susceptible to Wikiality. The nickname began because Breves wanted to retroactively prove that he had seen some kind of aardvark at Iguazu Falls. He was more successful than he ever could have imagined. Search YouTube for “coatis at Iguaçu Falls,” and you’ll get an amateur video, posted by someone Breves has never met, titled “Coati - (Brazilian aardvark) at Iguaçu Falls, Argentina.” Breves made his own reality, and, thanks to Wikipedia, we’ve all accepted it."
- samatman 12y agoSpeaking of racoon-related creatures, the miner's cat is also not a cat[0]. Wikipedia is not implicated here. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring-tailed_cat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring-tailed_cat
- Pxtl 12y agoPedantic clarification: Argentina spells it "Iguazú" not "Iguaçu", since you're talking about the Argentine side of the falls. Spanish vs. Portuguese.
- reeses 12y agoDon't worry, it will turn out to be, in fact, an aardvark. Please see the "panda bear is a racoon, oops, no, he's a bear," controversy. The fundamental problem is that Wikipedia's editorial policies great drag on the memory hole.
- somethingnew 12y agohttp://xkcd.com/978/ http://xkcd.com/978/
- ShowNectar 12y ago> But what's more interesting is that this may be an entirely different case: a falsehood starts on Wikipedia, percolates to external sources, and then becomes true because it is pervasive. Then it remains on Wikipedia because it is true. And that's only possible because informal names can be adopted, and hey, that thing does look like an aardvark. Nick names are sticky like that. This is exactly what happened to the red panda, where for years the Wikipedia page mentioned "firefox" or "fire fox" as a valid name. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=313983103 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=3... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=105154433 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=1... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=78412973 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=7... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=4994802 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_panda&oldid=4... Given the overlap between Wikipedia editors and proponents of Firefox, there was a strong echo chamber effect. Thankfully the page has now been fixed.
- acheron 12y agoI was curious about that so I checked it out a bit. According to the discussion page there, there are many references to the name "fire fox" that predate Mozilla (mainly in Chinese though some people found English citations as well). But the name has been removed from the article anyway due to over-zealous Wikipedia editors (but I repeat myself).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]