News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by bacchusracine on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @10:38AM (#32824845)
Hahahhahaha....evidence they say....hahahahahah.

Exhibit A: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgbwm/chinese-woman-fake-ru...

Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by chasebro on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @10:45AM (#32824938)
What a great example of how accurate Wikipedia is, someone went to extreme lengths to falsify information, they were discovered and their edits reverted, as happens in most cases
Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by Spooky23 on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @12:40PM (#32826669)
As a joke, some of my colleagues created a fake persona for another colleague after obtaining an old picture of him in punk rocker garb from college.

It was a long con, they created a fake band, added references to various obscure pages, etc. ultimately a page was created with the photo posted that followed every Wikipedia policy except for being false.

I’m sure people are doing that professionally. The problem with Wikipedia is that it’s awesome except for when it isn’t.

The weakness of the system is that it depends on arbitrary standards of notability and online reference. Not novel problems but you need to have a different kind of critical eye than other platforms.

Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by djur on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @01:35PM (#32827576)
Completely fictitious content is bad PR for Wikipedia, but it doesn't really materially affect its usefulness as a reference. Nobody's coming to Wikipedia looking to write their thesis on a band that never existed. The reason fictitious pages like this survive is because nobody is reading them. Even infamous long-lived examples like "Jar'Edo Wens" had essentially no real-world impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jar%27Edo_Wens_hoax

Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by Spooky23 on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @06:00PM (#32830730)
It enables all sorts of grifts.

Foolish as it may seem, people use Wikipedia to vet stuff and make decisions.

Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by akolbe on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @01:19PM (#32827318)
Then there was the case of the man whose image was used for two years to illustrate the Wikipedia article on a serial killer.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgpnq/wikipedia-and-google-...

Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by akolbe on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @11:13AM (#32825356)
Well, yes, after ten years, just as in the case of the toaster. And the translations of her Featured Article in three other Wikipedia language versions had STILL not been corrected last time I looked.
Re:Evidence says Wikipedia is accurate, reliable. When will ... by Beltalowda on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @01:03PM (#32827058)
> they were discovered and their edits reverted

Eventually they were discovered and their edits reverted. The misinformation was on the site for years.

This is like Donald Trump now (finally) admitting he lost the 2020 election fair and square and that Biden is the legitimate president of the United States and then using that as an example of what an honest and upstanding democracy-loving bloke he is. Ehh ... no.