Creative Vandalism

[Poetlister]

There was something going on at Marlon Humphrey (T-H-L) and the article has been protected. Additions include: "Marlon’s father is Bengals WR Ja’Marr Chase", "He recently was murdered by NFL Player Ja'Marr Chase", "Son of NFL great, C.J. Uzomah" and "son of bengals rookie WR Jamare Chase".

[Smiley]

My milkshake brings all the boys (T-C-L)

[tarantino]

This is an oldie but goodie.

1stlaw.png

[lonza leggiera]

Prompted by an exchange of letters in a local newspaper about Schrödinger's cat, I performed a web search to find out whether Schrödinger ever did own a cat, and, if so what its name was. I was confidently informed by many web sites, including a Facebook page of Physics Today, and a web page of IFLScience that Schrödinger had indeed owned a cat by the name of Milton. Discover magazine wasn't so sure, stating the evidence for Schrodinger's having ever owned a cat as "sketchy at best."

As it happens, the information that Schrödinger had owned a cat called Milton was added to the English Wikipedia article on Schrödinger by this edit in July 2013, and remained in the article until removed by this edit of December 2014 with the comment: "Ref does not support existence of said cat (also p 278 is about 1943 not 1934, according to Google Books); Milton was inserted by a now-banned user; I can find no evidence of Milton that predates the 2013 edit".

[rhindle]

Prompted by an exchange of letters in a local newspaper about Schrödinger's cat, I performed a web search to find out whether Schrödinger ever did own a cat, and, if so what its name was. I was confidently informed by many web sites, including a Facebook page of Physics Today, and a web page of IFLScience that Schrödinger had indeed owned a cat by the name of Milton. Discover magazine wasn't so sure, stating the evidence for Schrodinger's having ever owned a cat as "sketchy at best."

As it happens, the information that Schrödinger had owned a cat called Milton was added to the English Wikipedia article on Schrödinger by this edit in July 2013, and remained in the article until removed by this edit of December 2014 with the comment: "Ref does not support existence of said cat (also p 278 is about 1943 not 1934, according to Google Books); Milton was inserted by a now-banned user; I can find no evidence of Milton that predates the 2013 edit".

WP:HERPES strikes again.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Prompted by an exchange of letters in a local newspaper about Schrödinger's cat, I performed a web search to find out whether Schrödinger ever did own a cat, and, if so what its name was. I was confidently informed by many web sites, including a Facebook page of Physics Today, and a web page of IFLScience that Schrödinger had indeed owned a cat by the name of Milton. Discover magazine wasn't so sure, stating the evidence for Schrodinger's having ever owned a cat as "sketchy at best."

As it happens, the information that Schrödinger had owned a cat called Milton was added to the English Wikipedia article on Schrödinger by this edit in July 2013, and remained in the article until removed by this edit of December 2014 with the comment: "Ref does not support existence of said cat (also p 278 is about 1943 not 1934, according to Google Books); Milton was inserted by a now-banned user; I can find no evidence of Milton that predates the 2013 edit".

Remind me again why people trust anything they read on Wikipedia?

[Randy from Boise]

Prompted by an exchange of letters in a local newspaper about Schrödinger's cat, I performed a web search to find out whether Schrödinger ever did own a cat, and, if so what its name was. I was confidently informed by many web sites, including a Facebook page of Physics Today, and a web page of IFLScience that Schrödinger had indeed owned a cat by the name of Milton. Discover magazine wasn't so sure, stating the evidence for Schrodinger's having ever owned a cat as "sketchy at best."

As it happens, the information that Schrödinger had owned a cat called Milton was added to the English Wikipedia article on Schrödinger by this edit in July 2013, and remained in the article until removed by this edit of December 2014 with the comment: "Ref does not support existence of said cat (also p 278 is about 1943 not 1934, according to Google Books); Milton was inserted by a now-banned user; I can find no evidence of Milton that predates the 2013 edit".

Remind me again why people trust anything they read on Wikipedia?

Lemme get this straight: somebody vandalized Wikipedia a decade ago, which was caught and corrected, and for eight and a half years Wikipedia hasn't had the misinformation. But there are "many websites" still parroting the now-corrected vandalism — and this somehow is an indictment of Wikipedia?

M'kay.

t

[AndyTheGrump]

Did Milton invent the toaster?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Lemme get this straight: somebody vandalized Wikipedia a decade ago, which was caught and corrected, and for eight and a half years Wikipedia hasn't had the misinformation. But there are "many websites" still parroting the now-corrected vandalism — and this somehow is an indictment of Wikipedia?

Somebody vandalized Wikipedia and the misinformation was there for a year and a half until someone else noticed. Now that vandalism has become a "fact" because people got it from Wikipedia. How is that not an indictment of Wikipedia?

[lonza leggiera]

Lemme get this straight: somebody vandalized Wikipedia a decade ago, which was caught and corrected, and for eight and a half years Wikipedia hasn't had the misinformation. But there are "many websites" still parroting the now-corrected vandalism — and this somehow is an indictment of Wikipedia?

Somebody vandalized Wikipedia and the misinformation was there for a year and a half until someone else noticed. Now that vandalism has become a "fact" because people got it from Wikipedia. How is that not an indictment of Wikipedia?

Pulling the legs of some gullible Wikipedia readers by getting them to accept as fact the (very likely false) belief that Schrödinger had ever owned a cat called Milton isn't something I'd regard even as a misdemeanour, let alone an indictable offence. If the misinformation concerned had been something more like, say, that the ingestion of small amounts of radium had been found to increase the size of one's dangly bits without any detrimental side effects, then that would be a different matter entirely.

[casualdejekyll]

Really, it's a sort of proof against those "Always Improving™" people who claim that false information on wiki is no big deal if it can be corrected. Sure, on-wiki the damage isn't seen - but that doesn't mean it was un-done.

[tarantino]

If the misinformation concerned had been something more like, say, that the ingestion of small amounts of radium had been found to increase the size of one's dangly bits without any detrimental side effects, then that would be a different matter entirely.

The Dangly Bits would be a good name for a band.

[Hemiauchenia]

Really, it's a sort of proof against those "Always Improving™" people who claim that false information on wiki is no big deal if it can be corrected. Sure, on-wiki the damage isn't seen - but that doesn't mean it was un-done.

I mean, the whole reason the Alan MacMasters hoax lasted as long as it did was because gullible journalists had already picked up the claim before the article was even created, when it was just a brief unsourced mention on the toaster article. People who insist that Wikipedia is a reliable source are idiots, but Wikipedia is good in at least one respect: there are generally citations that you can check. Any claim on Wikipedia that lacks a citation should be taken with a large grain of salt. Being critical and sceptical is not just good advice for reading Wikipedia, but most sources really.

[casualdejekyll]

Really, it's a sort of proof against those "Always Improving™" people who claim that false information on wiki is no big deal if it can be corrected. Sure, on-wiki the damage isn't seen - but that doesn't mean it was un-done.

I mean, the whole reason the Alan MacMasters hoax lasted as long as it did was because gullible journalists had already picked up the claim before the article was even created, when it was just a brief unsourced mention on the toaster article. People who insist that Wikipedia is a reliable source are idiots, but Wikipedia is good in at least one respect: there are generally citations that you can check. Any claim on Wikipedia that lacks a citation should be taken with a large grain of salt. Being critical and sceptical is not just good advice for reading Wikipedia, but most sources really.

You can check citations all you want - sort of irrelevant when citogenesis occurs.

[Hemiauchenia]

Really, it's a sort of proof against those "Always Improving™" people who claim that false information on wiki is no big deal if it can be corrected. Sure, on-wiki the damage isn't seen - but that doesn't mean it was un-done.

I mean, the whole reason the Alan MacMasters hoax lasted as long as it did was because gullible journalists had already picked up the claim before the article was even created, when it was just a brief unsourced mention on the toaster article. People who insist that Wikipedia is a reliable source are idiots, but Wikipedia is good in at least one respect: there are generally citations that you can check. Any claim on Wikipedia that lacks a citation should be taken with a large grain of salt. Being critical and sceptical is not just good advice for reading Wikipedia, but most sources really.

You can check citations all you want - sort of irrelevant when citogenesis occurs.

Sure, but you can check the web, and if the only sources are relatively recent and don't provide any deeper sourcing for the claim, then it's reasonable to assume citogenesis.