Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
James's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
๊™ฎ liilliil ๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ฑ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฑ๐Ÿ‡ง
5 comments
Negative12DollarBill

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

25 December at 9:53 | Open on techhub.social
๊™ฎ liilliil ๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ฑ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฑ๐Ÿ‡ง

@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
๊™ฎ liilliil ๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฏ๐Ÿ‡ฑ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฑ๐Ÿ‡ง

@negative12dollarbill @gleick

Oh dearโ€ฆ

โ€œOn 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 publicationsโ€

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 โ€œauthoritative sourcesโ€ 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 โ€œauthoritative sourcesโ€ 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