Wikipedia's Credibility Is Toast

[Midsize Jake]

Wikipedia's Credibility Is Toast
by Virginia Belmont, with special thanks to Gustave.iii

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but if you want to fool all the people for nearly ten years, you'll probably have to use Wikipedia.

If you wanted to know who invented the electric toaster, you’d probably go to Google and type in something clever like “who invented the electric toaster?” I just did exactly that. Google told me it was a Scottish scientist named Alan MacMasters. It even showed me a little “knowledge panel,” sourced from Wikipedia.

But here’s the problem: Alan MacMasters didn’t invent the electric toaster. He wasn’t born in 1865, he didn’t die in 1927, and he didn’t attend the University of Edinburgh. Wikipedia’s article on Alan MacMasters was a complete fabrication. It was a hoax.

[AndyTheGrump]

[Hemiauchenia]

It's good to get the whole story of how this happened, and hilarious to see how much of an impact it's had and how many people were taken in. Easily one of the most impactful Wikipedia hoaxes ever.

[Zoloft]

It's hilarious, sad, and alarming all at once. Chef's kiss!

Maybe the Daily Dot, which is mostly Reddit glurge nowadays, might be interested?

[Hemiauchenia]

It's hilarious, sad, and alarming all at once. Chef's kiss!

Maybe the Daily Dot, which is mostly Reddit glurge nowadays, might be interested?

Given that many Wikipedia-related stories get picked up by news websites like Slate from The Signpost, I wonder if trying to get The Signpost to write about the story would be a good idea.

[Zoloft]

It's hilarious, sad, and alarming all at once. Chef's kiss!

Maybe the Daily Dot, which is mostly Reddit glurge nowadays, might be interested?

I reached out to Mikael Thalen at the Daily Dot.

[tarantino]

Given that many Wikipedia-related stories get picked up by news websites like Slate from The Signpost, I wonder if trying to get The Signpost to write about the story would be a good idea.

I'm pretty sure Stephen Harrison from Slate lurks here. He never credits us, though.

[Randy from Boise]

Like it or not, Wikipedia is THE central information data source for the cell phone in your pocket. On whole, it does an excellent job weeding out hoaxes and misinformation. But shit does happen.

[AndyTheGrump]

On whole, it does an excellent job weeding out hoaxes and misinformation...

Citation needed.

[Randy from Boise]

On whole, it does an excellent job weeding out hoaxes and misinformation...

Citation needed.

My assertion is certainly more plausible than this: "Wikipedia's Credibility Is Toast"

t

[Giraffe Stapler]

Like it or not, Wikipedia is THE central information data source for the cell phone in your pocket. On whole, it does an excellent job weeding out hoaxes and misinformation. But shit does happen.

I can tell by the colour of your tongue that you have drunk too much Koolaid.

Just yesterday, I looked at a newish article that someone had linked to in a discussion here. It had a lot of problems, but those problems would not be apparent to someone who didn't have a fairly deep knowledge of the subject. I am sure that the person who wrote the article did it in good faith and was not trying to spread misinformation, but that's exactly what they have ended up doing.

That person didn't know a lot about something and want to share their knowledge with the world. They wanted to write a new article in Wikipedia and found something they could write about, which is completely backwards. So now, because they just skimmed a bunch of references, they have created an article with errors that were not obvious to them, but are obvious to me because I happen to know a bit about that thing.

One of the errors in this article is tantamount to a hoax. They said that something happened which provably did not happen. I think I understand where the confusion arose, and it is probably the fault of the sources used not the person writing the article. However, since it is Wikipedia, it is now an indisputable "fact".

Now, I could dispute this "fact" and demonstrate that it is objectively wrong, but that would be "original research" and probably at odds with "reliable sources". At best, someone might agree to add a "John Doe of reliable source says..." qualification, which only assigns the blame without telling the Wikipedia reader that it isn't actually true.

Wikipedia does a terrible job of weeding out hoaxes and misinformation. If the 10 year existence of Alan MacMasters doesn't prove that, there's no hope for you.

[Hemiauchenia]

Wikipediocracy got a shout-out from Input Magazine: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/wikipe ... rs-toaster

The Alan MacMasters-toaster-hoax was recently discussed in a post on Wikipediocracy, a decade-old blog where a small crew of Wikipedia critics discuss and pillory the free encyclopedia. On it, a recent post with the overdramatized but admittedly hilarious title “Wikipedia’s credibility is toast” interviews the anonymous creator of the fictitious entry. Back in 2011, this anonymous prankster turned to Wikipedia to attribute the invention of the toaster to their university pal named Alan MacMasters, creating an entirely fabricated origin story and a hastily photoshopped photo.

[tarantino]

Ymblanter deleted the entry for Alan MacMasters on wikidata yesterday, but they decided today at project chat to undelete it and mark it as an instance of a Scottish fictional scientist and a hoax.

hoax
1 reference
title
Wikipedia's Credibility Is Toast (English)
publisher
Wikipediocracy
publication date
11 August 2022
reference URL
https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/w ... -is-toast/

[stedil]

Like it or not, Wikipedia is THE central information data source for the cell phone in your pocket. On whole, it does an excellent job weeding out hoaxes and misinformation. But shit does happen.

Just yesterday, I looked at a newish article that someone had linked to in a discussion here. It had a lot of problems, but those problems would not be apparent to someone who didn't have a fairly deep knowledge of the subject. I am sure that the person who wrote the article did it in good faith and was not trying to spread misinformation, but that's exactly what they have ended up doing.

You're both right, to an extent. Considering the sheer size of Wikipedia, it does a fairly impressive job at keeping the vast majority of obvious garbage out. Of course the sheer size of Wikipedia also means that a small percentage of garbage getting through is still an enormous amount of garbage.

The types of vandalism that tend to stick are the ones dealing with subjects that few people are knowledgeable about. It also helps if the vandal can make the lie seem plausible and can conceal their intentions in the edit summary. In the MacMasters case, the history of toasters is not exactly common knowledge, and the lie was replacing an earlier lie which itself was replacing an unsourced statement. The edit summary was "revert vandalism," which is the type of edit summary that more experienced users tend to make (and was actually half true, given that it was replacing vandalism).

[Beeblebrox]

has steadfastly resisted efforts to implement any meaningful form of pre-publication review.

So.... you guys really aren't even aware that in the time since this hoax was initiated that a change was made so that very new users cannot create mainspace pages and must submit drafts?

[AndyTheGrump]

has steadfastly resisted efforts to implement any meaningful form of pre-publication review.

So.... you guys really aren't even aware that in the time since this hoax was initiated that a change was made so that very new users cannot create mainspace pages and must submit drafts?

Not much of a bar though:

Several actions on the English Wikipedia (such as article creation) are restricted to user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia.

[The Blue Newt]

has steadfastly resisted efforts to implement any meaningful form of pre-publication review.

So.... you guys really aren't even aware that in the time since this hoax was initiated that a change was made so that very new users cannot create mainspace pages and must submit drafts?

Not much of a bar though:

Several actions on the English Wikipedia (such as article creation) are restricted to user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia.

I commend your self-restraint in not replying

Four…
Fucking…
Days…

[Giraffe Stapler]

has steadfastly resisted efforts to implement any meaningful form of pre-publication review.

So.... you guys really aren't even aware that in the time since this hoax was initiated that a change was made so that very new users cannot create mainspace pages and must submit drafts?

Not much of a bar though:

Several actions on the English Wikipedia (such as article creation) are restricted to user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia.

It's a low bar but it probably prevents a fair amount of mischief. You have to want to make that fake article enough that you are willing to create an account, make 10 edits, and wait 4 days. That doesn't seem like much, but it will stop someone was just joking around. It might have prevented the Alan MacMasters hoax if this was in place at the time.

[AndyTheGrump]

'Joking around' hoaxes aren't going to be the most problematic though. Many from Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (T-H-L) seem to have involved considerable work. Pick an obscure historical topic. Cite foreign-language print sources. You're ready to go. If you are smart, you'll include an obvious typo or two, and maybe some sort of Wiki-markup error, to induce other people to edit it, and give the impression it has been checked over...

[ScotFinnRadish]

'Joking around' hoaxes aren't going to be the most problematic though. Many from Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (T-H-L) seem to have involved considerable work. Pick an obscure historical topic. Cite foreign-language print sources. You're ready to go. If you are smart, you'll include an obvious typo or two, and maybe some sort of Wiki-markup error, to induce other people to edit it, and give the impression it has been checked over...

Don't forget vandalizing it once or twice as an IP and reverting with your account if the recent changes patrollers don't get it.

[Giraffe Stapler]

'Joking around' hoaxes aren't going to be the most problematic though. Many from Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (T-H-L) seem to have involved considerable work. Pick an obscure historical topic. Cite foreign-language print sources. You're ready to go. If you are smart, you'll include an obvious typo or two, and maybe some sort of Wiki-markup error, to induce other people to edit it, and give the impression it has been checked over...

I agree, but I wanted to acknowledge that Beeblebrox's point was valid.

[Beeblebrox]

It is a low bar and of course it won't stop a determined person, but it seems like it would've stopped this particular hoax that was apparently done on a whim.

[tarantino]

Andrew Orlowski on twitter yesterday.

[rhindle]

Andrew Orlowski on twitter yesterday.

A blue check named Kate Bevan quote tweeted it. Only criticized having Q and A part but never addressed the substance.

[Hemiauchenia]

Andrew Orlowski on twitter yesterday.

A blue check named Kate Bevan quote tweeted it. Only criticized having Q and A part but never addressed the substance.

It's a weird criticism I agree, it's not supposed to be giving a narrative account, it's an interview, not unlike those actual newspapers publish.

[Dennis Brown]

The title of this thread is flawed. Wikipedia is one of the largest website on the planet, maybe .0001% of ENWP readers know about this hoax. The unwashed masses don't care, they are too busy getting their news from memes on Facebook. Events like this don't even make a ripple, except in very small circles.

[The Blue Newt]

The title of this thread is flawed. Wikipedia is one of the largest website on the planet, maybe .0001% of ENWP readers know about this hoax. The unwashed masses don't care, they are too busy getting their news from memes on Facebook. Events like this don't even make a ripple, except in very small circles.

As someone wrote nearby “ That’s understandable, but… it’s also not especially good.”

[rhindle]

The title of this thread is flawed. Wikipedia is one of the largest website on the planet, maybe .0001% of ENWP readers know about this hoax. The unwashed masses don't care, they are too busy getting their news from memes on Facebook. Events like this don't even make a ripple, except in very small circles.

I guess you didn't get the pun.

[Hemiauchenia]

The title of this thread is flawed. Wikipedia is one of the largest website on the planet, maybe .0001% of ENWP readers know about this hoax. The unwashed masses don't care, they are too busy getting their news from memes on Facebook. Events like this don't even make a ripple, except in very small circles.

Over 850,000 people had viewed the toaster article between July 2015 and July 2022, when it included a reference to MacMasters. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project= ... es=Toaster When I checked Alan MacMasters viewership statistics before the article was deleted, it was averaging around 20 views per day, and had recieved over 60,000 pageviews since July 2015. Given that the article had been around for a few years before that, it's a good chance that at least 70,000 people had read the hoax article. This is much more visible than the vast majority of the hoaxes on WP:HOAXLIST (T-H-L).

[tarantino]

From the Signpost today:

A longstanding Wikipedia hoax was reported by the abovementioned Annie Rauwerda in Input, a digital magazine covering culture. Rauwerda said that a hoaxer had claimed that a Scot named Alan MacMasters invented the electric toaster in the 1890s, apparently learning of the hoax from Wikipediocracy, an online forum critical of Wikipedia.

The hoax was first introduced to Wikipedia in 2012 in an edit to the Toaster article and later expanded into an Alan MacMasters biography. In a classic case of citogenesis, many credible media sources subsequently copied the hoax, including the Daily Mirror in 2012, the BBC in 2013, and The Scotsman's "Scottish Fact of the Week" in 2014, which in turn all eventually ended up used as sources to bolster the fake biography. The hoax made its way into children's books about history published by Penguin Random House and Dorling Kindersley as early as 2016. Google to this day answers the question "Who invented the electric toaster" with "Alan MacMasters", citing the website of the Hagley Museum and Library.

The Alan MacMasters article was nominated for deletion and removed from the English Wikipedia last month, but at the time of writing Alan MacMasters still lingers in one form or another in about a dozen other Wikipedia language versions. – AK, B

[Giraffe Stapler]

From the Signpost today:

A longstanding Wikipedia hoax was reported by the abovementioned Annie Rauwerda in Input, a digital magazine covering culture. Rauwerda said that a hoaxer had claimed that a Scot named Alan MacMasters invented the electric toaster in the 1890s, apparently learning of the hoax from Wikipediocracy, an online forum critical of Wikipedia.

Is it really too much to expect them to link to our blog post or give us proper credit for the interview? I'm sure Annie Rauwerda is very nice, but why does she get mentioned twice and we're thrown in there like an afterthought? I'm tempted to write a strongly worded letter to the editor.

[Hemiauchenia]

From the Signpost today:

A longstanding Wikipedia hoax was reported by the abovementioned Annie Rauwerda in Input, a digital magazine covering culture. Rauwerda said that a hoaxer had claimed that a Scot named Alan MacMasters invented the electric toaster in the 1890s, apparently learning of the hoax from Wikipediocracy, an online forum critical of Wikipedia.

Is it really too much to expect them to link to our blog post or give us proper credit for the interview? I'm sure Annie Rauwerda is very nice, but why does she get mentioned twice and we're thrown in there like an afterthought? I'm tempted to write a strongly worded letter to the editor.

Given how many times we've mocked Smallbones on this forum, I suspect that the snub is very deliberate.

[No Ledge]

From the Signpost today:

A longstanding Wikipedia hoax was reported by the abovementioned Annie Rauwerda in Input, a digital magazine covering culture. Rauwerda said that a hoaxer had claimed that a Scot named Alan MacMasters invented the electric toaster in the 1890s, apparently learning of the hoax from Wikipediocracy, an online forum critical of Wikipedia.

Is it really too much to expect them to link to our blog post or give us proper credit for the interview? I'm sure Annie Rauwerda is very nice, but why does she get mentioned twice and we're thrown in there like an afterthought? I'm tempted to write a strongly worded letter to the editor.

Given how many times we've mocked Smallbones on this forum, I suspect that the snub is very deliberate.

And Andreas wasn't happy about this forum's treatment of his significant other.

Who are Virginia Belmont and Gustave.iii?

[No Ledge]

Who are Virginia Belmont and Gustave.iii?

Oh, I see. Gustave.iii created the hoax article 08:30, 17 February 2013.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Given how many times we've mocked Smallbones on this forum, I suspect that the snub is very deliberate.

Mocked him? I don't think anyone has actually mocked Smallbones here. Perhaps a little good-natured ribbing of a valued colleague. If I call him a hypocritical weasel and insufferable prat, it's meant with all the respect that he deserves.

[Vigilant]

Given how many times we've mocked Smallbones on this forum, I suspect that the snub is very deliberate.

Mocked him? I don't think anyone has actually mocked Smallbones here. Perhaps a little good-natured ribbing of a valued colleague. If I call him a hypocritical weasel and insufferable prat, it's meant with all the respect that he deserves.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 41#p186219

[No Ledge]

If anyone has a right to feel slighted in this, it's Mangoe (T-C-L) who nominated the biography for deletion on July 18, and wasn't mentioned by either the WPO blog nor The Signpost, not even in passing.

[tarantino]

If anyone has a right to feel slighted in this, it's Mangoe (T-C-L) who nominated the biography for deletion on July 18, and wasn't mentioned by either the WPO blog nor The Signpost, not even in passing.

He nominated it after seeing my post in the undetected vandalism thread.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Was it something we said?

I'll support what Adam wrote and the only reason I won't go way beyond that is that I don't want to insult anybody or cause needless controversy. Everything in WO is suspect as far as I'm concerned. AGF does not apply. Based on 99% of their history, it might be the opposite. We should never link to them. Rarely, I think we should acknowledge that they exist. But that's about it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It's amazing how much of the "suspect" stuff we post here ends up making things happen on Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

Was it something we said?

I'll support what Adam wrote and the only reason I won't go way beyond that is that I don't want to insult anybody or cause needless controversy. Everything in WO is suspect as far as I'm concerned. AGF does not apply. Based on 99% of their history, it might be the opposite. We should never link to them. Rarely, I think we should acknowledge that they exist. But that's about it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It's amazing how much of the "suspect" stuff we post here ends up making things happen on Wikipedia.

He's a little butthurt.

Perhaps posting the Exile articles directly will help?

[tarantino]

Was it something we said?

I'll support what Adam wrote and the only reason I won't go way beyond that is that I don't want to insult anybody or cause needless controversy. Everything in WO is suspect as far as I'm concerned. AGF does not apply. Based on 99% of their history, it might be the opposite. We should never link to them. Rarely, I think we should acknowledge that they exist. But that's about it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It's amazing how much of the "suspect" stuff we post here ends up making things happen on Wikipedia.

At least I got a little credit (though not from our old pal).

[Vigilant]

For the record, Peter.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 41#p169241

[tarantino]

Soon to be on BBC radio, The Alan MacMasters’ toaster hoax

A brazen British prankster tells all.

For more than a decade, he tricked the world into believing a Scottish scientist called “Alan MacMasters” invented the electric toaster in 1893.

At the heart of his web of fantasy was a Wikipedia article that fooled dozens of journalists, public officials, and even primary school teachers.

But how did this hoaxer get away with it for so long? And how did an eagle-eyed 15-year-old eventually manage to expose his deception?

eagle-eyed 15-year-old?

[Midsize Jake]

eagle-eyed 15-year-old?

Yeah, I've never understood why parents insist on having their children's eyeballs surgically replaced with those of predatory birds. I mean, aside from blinding the bird, it really doesn't improve the visual acuity of these kids, and frankly it makes them look really weird and creepy afterwards.



In all seriousness, we'll probably just have to wait until Nov. 20 to find out what they actually mean by this, though whatever it is, I'm sure it will involve the media's typical complete failure to give this website due credit for pretty much anything.