Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 04:12:45 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Amusing Wikipedia Stuff [split topic]

Started by dr_christian_troy, July 25, 2010, 11:46:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ambient Sheep

Quote from: marquis_de_sad on July 10, 2019, 12:33:18 PMI don't know if you're objecting to my use of the word "annoying", but from the context of the conversation it's clear these aren't being held up as good articles.

That's not how I took it, I just assumed an amusing aside in good faith.  I accept I could be wrong.

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: NoSleep on July 09, 2019, 09:54:04 AM
True... if you know a subject well, you'll notice the predominance of received wisdom over knowledge or history. And you can tell when somebody's idea of research means reading up on wiki.

it's why I will always go to the talk page first. I don't trust the articles. too many of the people now editing & writing for wikipedia are like our friend popcorn here, asserting that verifiability trumps actual first hand knowledge of something, & suggesting that something which has been published in an actual book is somehow more trustworthy, more "peer-reviewed" than (say) an online source which is actively checked, reviewed, updated....
another thing that bothers me is the automatic distrust of 'original research'; someone sat through every episode of 'taxi' & counted the appearances by the principal cast members, because there was no other source for this information. thrown out as OR.
useful information is being excluded from this encyclopedia because it hasn't been published somewhere else. & it really annoys me that the verified source can be & often is something where there's less input from people who know the subject- a single author, often, but who's managed to get something into print, will trump someone with better, or more recent data, but who can't provide an ISBN number to quote.

anyway, on a lighter note- this is on the talk page for the rickenbacker 4001 bass guitar, about which I know a great deal, but which knowledge I am keeping to myself.

"I added the character Haruko of the anime series FLCL to the list of notable players because her bass remains prominent throughout the entire series and currently serves as her trademark. I would've cited my source but I couldn't find anything official. This fact however appears many times throughout the Wiki page for FLCL and on this page as well. Also if you compare these two photos, here and here, she is most defintiley using a Rickenbacker 4001. 173.58.250.5 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Moltanic

Why'd you add a fictional chracter, you anime wanking mong?"

popcorn

I don't get it. If you want to go and read a fan site with extensive info about whatever that's great, those pages are really useful and it's obviously wonderful that they exist. But they're not encyclopaedic. It's not what Wikipedia's for.

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: popcorn on July 08, 2019, 07:37:04 AM
You're still wrong about this.

The cycle you and Ambient Sheep describe (citogenesis) is real and produces real-world problems. There's even a Wikipedia article that lists cases, if anyone's interested.

But to present this as if it therefore makes Wikipedia somehow fundamentally broken is completely wrong. Wikipedia is still, on the whole, very accurate when compared to other sources (including other "professional" encyclopaedias), and there's a well cited Wikipedia article about that too.

Your alternative, "bothering to ask the people who were actually there or know about something", would only work if there were some good way to know these people were generally reliable. Which is the whole point of verifiability.

Inviting anyone who claimed "to be there" to march in and rewrite facts based on their own personal expertise would undo the entire project. Why would anyone believe them? Why should they? What would the Donald Trump article look like? It would produce a far less readable, useful and above all less accurate encyclopaedia.

Your frustrations with Wikipedia sound like the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. Which is to say that seeing incorrect information about a topic you're an expert on is of course annoying, but not exclusive to Wikipedia - and in fact Wikipedia offers more tools to repair it than, well, any other reliable source of information. You just have to play by the rules, and the rules, to use a wanker's phrase, are there for a reason.

I would be genuinely interested in knowing about which falsehoods you've encountered on Wikipedia and can't find sources to correct. Completely happy to help. Just PM me.

'wrong'? cheers. we have different opinions on how wikipedia should work. but mine's wrong.

greatest of respect, fuck you & your high horse.
I'm not saying wikipedia's broken, I'm saying that verifiability isn't good enough in its current form.
it will "only work if there were some good way to know these people were generally reliable. Which is the whole point of verifiability."

here's the last entry in the list of citogenesis incidents-

"The Casio F-91W digital watch was long listed as having been introduced in 1991, whereas the correct date was June 1989. The error was introduced in March 2009 and only corrected in June 2019, thanks to vintage watch enthusiasts."

& the explanation behind this entry-

https://news3lv.com/around-the-web/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air

"Wikipedia's citation guidelines don't allow original research as a source. Only published "reliable sources" – sources such as mainstream newspapers, magazines, journals and books – are allowed.

This works so long as these reliable sources do their due diligence. But all it takes is one rushed reporter trusting an unsourced Wikipedia article for the entire system to break down into a self-perpetuating feedback loop of falsehood."

& this is why unpublished experts are deterred from making wikipedia edits, let alone writing articles from scratch.

popcorn

It's got me thinking, though. I wonder what an equivalent project that was based entirely on original research might look like.

There are obviously fan wikis and fan pages that provide this sort of thing. Many of them are very useful, even when they're amateurishly written or organised. But these tend to benefit from the fact that they're put together by a small group of people, or often one person. How would you resolve conflicts on an OR-OK Wikipedia? It's hard enough on the real Wikipedia, where people argue about interpretations of sources...

Sources would presumably still be useful. Like you might want to say "this guitar was released in such and such year" and want to prove it by linking to whatever proof you had. I mean, this is what people already do all the time on fan sites or forums or whatever. But presumably the standards of proof would be lower... so low there'd be no standard at all, if we're going for OR-OK.

Would you still forbid opinion, and non-neutral writing? For example, the Rickenbacker article you mention describes the "iconic upper bout and headstock silhouettes". This is classic bad Wikipedia writing because who says it's iconic? Wikipedia can't just say in Wikipedia's voice that something is "iconic" - that's a subjective/hyperbolic claim, even if you cite it. Wikipedia doesn't get to tell readers what's iconic, or delicious, or scary, etc - it can only say that's what critics or whoever said about something. That's not the same thing as requiring a source, though. So would this be OK on an OR-OK encyclopaedia? Hmm.

popcorn

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on July 11, 2019, 01:18:34 PM
This works so long as these reliable sources do their due diligence. But all it takes is one rushed reporter trusting an unsourced Wikipedia article for the entire system to break down into a self-perpetuating feedback loop of falsehood."

& this is why unpublished experts are deterred from making wikipedia edits, let alone writing articles from scratch.

Yeah I understand - but while Wikipedia will always be imperfect the verifiability policy means things are less wrong than they otherwise would be.

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: popcorn on July 11, 2019, 01:21:05 PM
It's got me thinking, though. I wonder what an equivalent project that was based entirely on original research might look like.

There are obviously fan wikis and fan pages that provide this sort of thing. Many of them are very useful, even when they're amateurishly written or organised. But these tend to benefit from the fact that they're put together by a small group of people, or often one person. How would you resolve conflicts on an OR-OK Wikipedia? It's hard enough on the real Wikipedia, where people argue about interpretations of sources...

Sources would presumably still be useful. Like you might want to say "this guitar was released in such and such year" and want to prove it by linking to whatever proof you had. I mean, this is what people already do all the time on fan sites or forums or whatever. But presumably the standards of proof would be lower... so low there'd be no standard at all, if we're going for OR-OK.

Would you still forbid opinion, and non-neutral writing? For example, the Rickenbacker article you mention describes the "iconic upper bout and headstock silhouettes". This is classic bad Wikipedia writing because who says it's iconic? Wikipedia can't just say in Wikipedia's voice that something is "iconic" - that's a subjective/hyperbolic claim, even if you cite it. Wikipedia doesn't get to tell readers what's iconic, or delicious, or scary, etc - it can only say that's what critics or whoever said about something. That's not the same thing as requiring a source, though. So would this be OK on an OR-OK encyclopaedia? Hmm.

fan pages & fan wikis benefit greatly from open warfare amongst enthusiasts, the sort of thing that's confined to talk-pages behind wikipedia articles... the problem I have with the way it's done in WP's case is that a small number of seemingly self-appointed & policy-obsessed users start quoting chapter-&-verse at people about OR & unverified source material, demanding citations where there probably aren't any. the case of the cast-counting 'taxi' fan is a good example, & annoyed me greatly. what possible motive would someone have for deliberately making a false entry of this information? the other examples in the citogenesis article, similarly, appear to be mistakes rather than obvious vandalism....

this one, about the basketball match-fixing-

https://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html

"On August 12th, 2008 an anonymous Wikipedia user for all intents and purposes then rewrote history. We don't know why or who, but on that day 43 characters were added to the page. The bulk of these edits were the addition of Streater's name five times into the article. The changes to the article on that day can be found here. From that day in 2008 up until yesterday, Streater's involvement was never challenged, or deleted. He was now part of the scandal......The Wikipedia user in question is only identified by the IP address they used to make the changes"

do we know if it was vandalism? a genuine mis-remembering? was streater harmed by the mistake? but the easy fixes are these- require that people sign in, & give plenty of advice to new users attempting edits & rewrites. this latter is starting to happen already, but it's taken far too long. but also- the 'fix' for the streater mistake seems to have come about by someone doing some research... looking at records & so forth. further down towards the end of the 'awfulannouncing' piece, the writer describes how the article has degenerated from having 'good' citations to being in need of them; what became of the original citations? do they get downgraded as new information arrives?

popcorn

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on July 11, 2019, 01:45:17 PM
f the problem I have with the way it's done in WP's case is that a small number of seemingly self-appointed & policy-obsessed users start quoting chapter-&-verse at people about OR & unverified source material, demanding citations where there probably aren't any.

These "small number of seemingly self-appointed & policy-obsessed users" are the good Wikipedia editors. Which is to say they're the ones who are following the rules. Of course they're self-appointed, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. But you can't have a go at people for following the rules of a website. Your problem is with the rules, not the editors who asked you to prove your claims.

Quote
the case of the cast-counting 'taxi' fan is a good example, & annoyed me greatly. what possible motive would someone have for deliberately making a false entry of this information?

I don't know what that Taxi incident was all about, but it doesn't strike me necessarily as OR, as you might be able to use the episodes themselves as sources (though that wouldn't be ideal). But I'd probably argue not to include it because it's trivia, fansite fodder - Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of information.

You probably also know the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith, which basically means "assume that people aren't trying to fuck things up on purpose". So OR isn't removed because people are probably adding falsified information, it's because why should anyone believe what you say?

The fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit is what has brought it the most amount of criticism. The only defense is to ban original research. You have to be able to prove what you're saying is true, and the proof has to be better than your blog.

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: popcorn on July 11, 2019, 02:00:39 PM
These "small number of seemingly self-appointed & policy-obsessed users" are the good Wikipedia editors. Which is to say they're the ones who are following the rules. Of course they're self-appointed, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. But you can't have a go at people for following the rules of a website. Your problem is with the rules, not the editors who asked you to prove your claims.


... yes, my problem is with the rules, but also with the way they're over-zealously upheld.....

Quote from: popcorn on July 11, 2019, 02:00:39 PM

I don't know what that Taxi incident was all about, but it doesn't strike me necessarily as OR, as you might be able to use the episodes themselves as sources (though that wouldn't be ideal). But I'd probably argue not to include it because it's trivia, fansite fodder - Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of information.


many- I'd go so far as to say most- of the articles about episodic TV shows- have such information presented. this user tried to add it to the article about 'taxi', but couldn't find an external source that met WP guidelines, so he sat through the whole five years of shows himself & counted how many times danny de vito, judd hirsch, andy kaufman & the rest were in the show. is it trivia? who's to say?

Quote from: popcorn on July 11, 2019, 02:00:39 PM

You probably also know the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith, which basically means "assume that people aren't trying to fuck things up on purpose". So OR isn't removed because people are probably adding falsified information, it's because why should anyone believe what you say?


well, what do you suggest, so that WP isn't excluding input from people who know stuff, want to add it in good faith, but can't pass the verifiability test?

what I'm suggesting is that they give an account of themselves on the talk page first, outlining their proposed changes/additions & giving some background to support the data.that way, we can get something like 'peer review' happening. & let's be honest, that's the best a book or other publication is going to get, ever, & they're accepted sources.


Quote from: popcorn on July 11, 2019, 02:00:39 PM
The fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit is what has brought it the most amount of criticism. The only defense is to ban original research. You have to be able to prove what you're saying is true, and the proof has to be better than your blog.

see above. many of the coffee table books I've read about my own area (bass guitars) are riddled with errors, & are cited in WP articles. nothing I can do about it.

popcorn

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on July 11, 2019, 02:14:53 PM
well, what do you suggest, so that WP isn't excluding input from people who know stuff, want to add it in good faith, but can't pass the verifiability test?

Make a website. :)

Quotewhat I'm suggesting is that they give an account of themselves on the talk page first, outlining their proposed changes/additions & giving some background to support the data.that way, we can get something like 'peer review' happening. & let's be honest, that's the best a book or other publication is going to get, ever, & they're accepted sources.

It's an interesting idea but I just can't imagine this being workable. Like it or lump it, the current policy has pretty specific criteria for what can be used as a source. Your system would be a lot fuzzier. Leading a bunch of internet strangers to agree on a topic sounds both very difficult and also dangerously easy, if you know what I mean. I said it before, but can you imagine the Donald Trump article written this way? The Prophet Mohammad article? The homeopathy article? At least Taxi and bass guitars aren't hot topics for many people. It would also be a fucking nightmare for readers to verify facts - they'd presumably have to go and do their own reading on Wikipedia editor duncandisorderly and figure out how much they wanted to trust them.

a duncandisorderly

'Carnegie Mellon Professor Randy Pausch offered the following anecdote in his book The Last Lecture. He was surprised that his entry to World Book Encyclopedia on virtual reality was accepted without question, so he concluded, "I now believe Wikipedia is a perfectly fine source for your information, because I know what the quality control is for real encyclopedias." '

tricky. but I think that by insisting on citations that meet a particular threshold, the baby goes out with the bathwater. people with something to contribute get pissed off, set up their own sites, whatever.

& now some more light relief:

'After the 2010 FIFA World Cup, FIFA president Sepp Blatter was presented with the Order of the Companions of Oliver Reginald Tambo. The citation, however, read: "The Order of the Companions of OR Tambo in Gold—awarded to Joseph Sepp Bellend Blatter (1936–) for his exceptional contribution to the field of football and support for the hosting of the Fifa World Cup on the African continent," after the name on his Wikipedia entry was vandalized. '

marquis_de_sad

Quote from: Ambient Sheep on July 10, 2019, 06:00:42 PM
That's not how I took it, I just assumed an amusing aside in good faith.  I accept I could be wrong.

Fair enough, if you and An tSaoi both think so, then I can see I'm in the minority here and probably read it wrong.

hillbillyholiday

So much funny stuff goes on behind the scenes. It's a circus.

One exchange in particular is held by many as the perfect exemplar of Wiki-wonkery.
The user here has just been blocked out the blue for no discernable reason whatsoever and is trying in vain to get answers from an administrator:

Quoteuser : "I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque."

admin : "If you are User:Kafkaesque you need to make this unblock request in that account name."


JesusAndYourBush

Quote from: hillbillyholiday on July 12, 2019, 07:28:47 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Tingle#Bibliography

That looks like it was written by an AI bot.  Either that or the Mock The Week team riffing on gay literature titles.

I assume it's real though because I remember someone linking to one of the dinosaur titles on Amazon.
Oh, the page goes on and on.  All of those are real?

popcorn

Quote from: JesusAndYourBush on July 13, 2019, 12:14:54 PM
That looks like it was written by an AI bot.  Either that or the Mock The Week team riffing on gay literature titles.

I assume it's real though because I remember someone linking to one of the dinosaur titles on Amazon.
Oh, the page goes on and on.  All of those are real?

Yeah, Chuck Tingle is a joke writer persona whose gimmick is writing endless books with stupid names.

popcorn

Just Mayo is an egg-free mayonnaise substitute produced by JUST, Inc, formerly known as Hampton Creek. Just Mayo was first released in Northern California Whole Foods Markets on September 19, 2013.[1] Just Mayo comes in original, wasabi, truffle, sesame ginger, garlic, chipotle and sriracha flavors. It has been described as "a vegan spread that has rattled the egg industry."[2]

Ferris

QuoteThe Bog is a former mining community in Shropshire, England. It lies 6 miles (10 km) north of Bishops Castle, east of the A488, at grid reference SO355979. It was once a busy village with over 200 buildings. Now only a few remain.

Sounds like a setup to a bad horror film.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bog

Edit: I love these small town articles. This one sounds like they've set up a skatepark for wheelchairs.

QuoteThe Bog Mine Visitor Centre, the main facility for visitors to the Stiperstones, is housed in the former village school and retains its old interior design.[1] It provides historical information about the past workers, mining, and present-day work to restore the landscape. Facilities at the centre include toilets and car parking (with facilities for the disabled including reserved parking, toilets and ramps).

Good on Clifford.

QuoteThe centre contains a framed tribute to 26 men and women from The Bog and nearby Pennerley who served the armed forces in World War II, of whom two men died in the war and the last survivor, an airwoman, died in 2010. Headed "Lest We Forget" and bearing photographs of each named person, it was compiled and funded by local man Clifford Evans who unveiled it in the latter year.[4]

I suspect one C Evans of The Bog, Salops wrote this page.

Captain Crunch

I do like the detailed summaries for Stoppit & Tidyup episodes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoppit_and_Tidyup
Quote
It is a rainy old day in the land of Do As You're Told (which Stoppit does not like because it keeps him from going out to play, so he is glad when it finally stops), but he always forgets that Wash Your Face comes out after it rains to jump in muddy puddles. Tidyup has also just finished washing all his neckties, but he too forgets about Wash Your Face, so after he washes all his neckties and gets them ruined by Wash Your Face twice more, he and Stoppit chase him over the bridge to Stoppit's dump, but they cannot catch him. Tidyup then gets the idea of digging a very deep hole and filling it with water to make it look like an ordinary puddle, so when Wash Your Face jumps into it, he will not be able to get back out. After this plan succeeds, Stoppit and Tidyup find an old bath on Stoppit's dump, give Wash Your Face a bath by dangling him in it by his hair as he has never had a proper bath in his life, and hang him out to dry on Tidyup's washing line.

popcorn

Episode summaries are always good for a laugh. This from Naked Attraction (aka Blind Date but with nudity):

QuoteJasmin from Bognor has malic enzyme and needs acceptance from a new lover. Jasmin began to feel tired at the end of the date, blaming her malic enzyme.

hillbillyholiday

Such hilarity is largely due to Wiki not applying the usual sourcing rules for plots and episode summaries. (And autism, natch.)

A couple of my faves:

* AnemoneProjectors has written a summary of almost every single Eastenders episode, all six thousand of 'em, and the minor characters, yet they keep all this in their personal userspace, it's not even on Wiki!

* The fourth paragraph of Ekhane Aakash Neel#Plot.


popcorn

Quote from: hillbillyholiday on July 21, 2019, 11:23:48 PM
Such hilarity is largely due to Wiki not applying the usual sourcing rules for plots and episode summaries. (And autism, natch.)

In my experience it's usually the fact that they're on more obscure articles where terrible writing is able to sit for years unchallenged, regardless of sources.

gilbertharding

I want to, but somehow can't be bothered to, amend the Buzzcocks wiki page to add the definite article.

I know the name of the band is Buzzcocks, but people who correct you if you refer to 'the Buzzcocks' are cunts*.

Sorry - this is probably the wrong thread - but I noticed that John Cooper Clarke referred to 'the Buzzcocks' on Desert Island Discs yesterday.

* No better than people who insist on 'hanged' and 'union flag'.


kalowski

Quote from: gilbertharding on July 22, 2019, 10:45:25 AM
I want to, but somehow can't be bothered to, amend the Buzzcocks wiki page to add the definite article.

I know the name of the band is Buzzcocks, but people who correct you if you refer to 'the Buzzcocks' are cunts*.

Sorry - this is probably the wrong thread - but I noticed that John Cooper Clarke referred to 'the Buzzcocks' on Desert Island Discs yesterday.

* No better than people who insist on 'hanged' and 'union flag'.
I've spent my whole life insisting on "hanged" and "union flag". Love correcting people who say "Hoover" too. It's like people when they say Tannoy when they mean public address system. Tannoy is a brand name.

JesusAndYourBush

Quote from: gilbertharding on July 22, 2019, 10:45:25 AM
I want to, but somehow can't be bothered to, amend the Buzzcocks wiki page to add the definite article.

I know the name of the band is Buzzcocks, but people who correct you if you refer to 'the Buzzcocks' are cunts*.

Sorry - this is probably the wrong thread - but I noticed that John Cooper Clarke referred to 'the Buzzcocks' on Desert Island Discs yesterday.

* No better than people who insist on 'hanged' and 'union flag'.

Possibly controversial, but I'd add people who correct you and say "fewer", when you say "less".

Ferris

I insist on less/fewer, union flag, and hanged.

I try not to correct people in conversation, but sometimes I can't help myself. I make no apologies.

gilbertharding

The less/fewer and hanged... I mean, I know the difference, and agree there's right and wrong (although it's 'hung, drawn and quartered,' for some reason). It's the correcting people in conversation which is poor form, as you've said.

But 'Union Jack' is fine. Not my words - the words of Graham Bartram of The Flag Institute (not all appeals to authority are logical fallacies, surely?).

marquis_de_sad

Quote from: gilbertharding on July 22, 2019, 10:45:25 AM
Sorry - this is probably the wrong thread - but I noticed that John Cooper Clarke referred to 'the Buzzcocks' on Desert Island Discs yesterday.

* No better than people who insist on 'hanged' and 'union flag'.

It sounds to me like you want to both notice these mistakes and pull up other people for pointing them out. You are a meta-pedant.

gilbertharding

Perhaps. It's as much to do with the fact that often the mistakes being pointed to aren't really mistakes at all.

Union Jack: not wrong.
Hung: debatable - https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/hung-or-hanged

The jumping off point for my 'problem' - That it's fine to refer to the Buzzcocks (but not to The Buzzcocks). In fact, it's BETTER to refer to the Buzzcocks, because insisting that everyone calls them Buzzcocks makes you sound like a proper wanker.

OK - I'm a meta-pedant because I hate people correcting people when they themselves are wrong, or presenting debate as conclusion. If the only reason to get things 'right' is to avoid the wroth of people who will point out you're 'wrong', what's wrong with fighting back?

bgmnts

If you have a massive cock you're well hung. If you lynch someone in a very efficient way its well hanged.