Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
James's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
ꙮ liilliil 🇫🇯🇱🇨🇱🇧

@gleick wikipedia is not “antidote to disinformation”
wikipedia is mostly disinformation by it’s nature

You want an example? I once intentionally put a fake on wikipedia. This fake was reprinted by several newspapers, which were “authoritative sources” for wikipedia. All further attempts to roll back the information to the true state were rebuffed by the wikipedia administration

25 December at 1:35 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.online
10 comments
James Gleick
Negative12DollarBill
ꙮ liilliil 🇫🇯🇱🇨🇱🇧

@negative12dollarbill @gleick

I don't want to reveal my case, but others are equally famous
25 December at 9:41 | Open on mastodon.online
Negative12DollarBill

@liilliil @gleick

I just checked the Wikipedia pages for Amelia Bedelia and the author and that passage is not in either.

25 December at 9:44 | Open on techhub.social
ꙮ liilliil 🇫🇯🇱🇨🇱🇧
Negative12DollarBill

@liilliil @gleick You have not in any way proven your point.

25 December at 9:53 | Open on techhub.social
ꙮ liilliil 🇫🇯🇱🇨🇱🇧

@negative12dollarbill @gleick My point was that deliberately placed misinformation can persist on wikipedia for years, dude

25 December at 9:55 | Open on mastodon.online
Negative12DollarBill

@liilliil @gleick
Your point was that misinformation can be placed on Wikipedia, then quoted in other sources, then those sources get added to Wikipedia as validating the misinformation in a circular fashion, and that Wikipedia editors actively resist efforts to fix the misinformation even when you tell them about it.

Dude.

25 December at 9:56 | Open on techhub.social
ꙮ liilliil 🇫🇯🇱🇨🇱🇧

@negative12dollarbill @gleick

Oh dear…

“On July 29th, she published a post titled "I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax" on The Daily Dot[1], which noted the Wikipedia edit had been cited in a number of other publications”

25 December at 9:59 | Open on mastodon.online
Negative12DollarBill

@liilliil @gleick

Here's what you wrote:

1. "I once intentionally put a fake on wikipedia."
2. 'This fake was reprinted by several newspapers, which were “authoritative sources” for wikipedia.'
3. "All further attempts to roll back the information to the true state were rebuffed by the wikipedia administration"

You have proven point 1 only. Nobody would deny that Wikipedia can be maliciously edited.

Please continue and prove points 2 and 3.

@liilliil @gleick

Here's what you wrote:

1. "I once intentionally put a fake on wikipedia."
2. 'This fake was reprinted by several newspapers, which were “authoritative sources” for wikipedia.'
3. "All further attempts to roll back the information to the true state were rebuffed by the wikipedia administration"

25 December at 10:09 | Open on techhub.social
Go Up