Home
» Intelligent Design » Wiki Hoax Article Not Caught for Five Years
Wiki Hoax Article Not Caught for Five Years
| January 5, 2013 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
18 Responses to Wiki Hoax Article Not Caught for Five Years
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
per wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Academic use
Excerpt: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ademic_use
further notes:
Wikipedia’s Tyranny of the Unemployed – David Klinghoffer – June 24, 2012
Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia’s articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia’s volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight.
You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again.
,,, on Wikipedia, “fact” is established by the party with the free time that’s required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61281.html
And even peer review has its problems:
An Interview with David Noble – Peer Review as Censorship by SUZAN MAZUR – 2010
Excerpt: SUZAN MAZUR: I’ve been focusing on abuse inside the peer review system in recent articles for CounterPunch. The system seems to have spiraled out of control – to the extent that at the low end we now find virtual death squads on Internet blogs out to destroy scientists who have novel theories. They pretend to be battling creationism but their real job is to censor the free flow of ideas on behalf of the science establishment. The science establishment rewards bloody deeds like these by putting the chief assassin on the cover of The Humanist magazine, for example.
But you’ve written in “Regression on the Left” that the problem IS the peer review system itself. Why do you think so?
David Noble: When you say THE problem is the peer review system – the peer review system in my view is doing what it was designed to do — censor. And filter. Peer review is a system of prior censorship, prior review – prior meaning prior to publication. So the idea of abusing the peer review system sort of adds insult to injury, because the peer review system itself is injurious.,,,
http://www.counterpunch.org/20.....ensorship/
Daniel Sarewitz: Bias is Like a Magnetic Field That Pulls Iron Filings Into Alignment – November 2012
Excerpt: to make matters worse, science’s attempts at internal controls, such as conflicts of interest disclosure, are not keeping up with the problem. Sarewitz points out that industry teams, who seek actually to implement scientific findings, are consistently unable to confirm what were thought to be “landmark” findings. As John Ioannidis has put it, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....netic.html
Peer Reviewed Research: The Fraud Explosion – October 6, 2012
Excerpt: “Misconduct (fraud and plagiarism) is the main cause of life-sciences retractions.”
http://crev.info/2012/10/the-fraud-explosion/
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – Oct. 10, 2012
Excerpt: Peer review works best when most of the reviewers believe in at least two truths:
1. Objective moral values (like honesty) exist.
2. Human minds originated from a source that underwrites proper cognitive function aimed at discovering truth about reality.
Here lies the problem. Materialistic modernism, which has embraced Darwinism, undermines belief in the two statements above.,,,
http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/
I was under the impression that wikipedia was a hoax.
There was a time when encyclopedias were respected references
Just sayin’…
Naturally enough, there is a Wikipedia page about this.
Personally, I do not find this at all troubling. Anybody who is troubled by this has probably been using Wikipedia the wrong way.
It’s the Big Lie in microcosm.
Crazy claim with bad grammar and no sources? Zapped within hours.
Crazy claim with an hyperlink to a non-existent white paper and century-old Oxfordspeak to match? Nobody checks it for half a decade.
F/N: I observed the dig at NWE (recently contrasted with Wiki on ID). Followed up:
They were caught by the hoax ll right, but have responded appropriately.
Wiki now reads:
H’mm . . .
KF
PS: More to follow on a much more important — and still unacknowledged — Wiki hoax article, the hatchet job on ID.
Semi OT: Here is something else you probably will never find in wikipedia:
Vincent van Gogh’s unappreciated journey with Christ
Excerpt: Most art critics and historians believe Vincent lost his faith sometime between 1882 and 1885. Yet Havlicek found abundant evidence in Vincent’s letters and his art that an abiding faith remained, even as his health and behavior deteriorated. Surprisingly, most of the Christian-themed paintings appeared in the last three years of his life.,,,
“He loved Christ enormously at the end of his life,” Havlicek maintains. “He said Christ alone among all the magi and wise men offered men eternal life. In spite of a broken life, something glorious emerged.”
http://blog.godreports.com/201.....th-christ/
If you think Wikipedia is bad Talk Origins is a hoot!
Talk Origins, where starwmen are made and refuted…
LoL! strawmen, not “starwmen”
Andre: wiki plainly has a lot more influence. KF
PS: Think, GoF Design patterns. Then in light of the well known spaghetti code problem, ask yourself if such patterns are signatures of design.
I think we can all understand why it is that Wikipedia can host a hoax article (possibly because it deals with an obscure subject that few people are likely to read and object to?)
Can you point to a Wikipedia article that is currently published and that you regard as a hoax?
“Can you point to a Wikipedia article that is currently published and that you regard as a hoax?”
Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
@timothya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
TA: Right now the biggie hoax article that is a focus of attention at UD is the hit piece on ID, presented as NPOV, which includes not only bias and misinformation but outright propagandistic false assertions. KF
PS: JW, not to be debated here at UD, but you may wish to have a look here.
@kairosfocus:
I had a look and saw the same old anti-christian propaganda. (Btw. I have links, too.) Indeed, no debate needed.
JW:
I paused to look at the Trinity article, and note the tone of your response.
Let’s clip the intro at Wiki:
I wish the ID article had an intro like that!
There is a fair and accurate summary of the teaching and views of those who accept the triune nature of God, and there is an indication that this is (i) a mystery, and (ii)that it is objected to by several identified groups or positions, which are linked to. In turn, glancing at a cross section, these views are also fairly summarised at a 101 level.
In dealing with scriptural data, the article surveys what led many early Christians to the doctrine,and deals reasonably with the Coma Johanneum.
(Note, the 325 and 381 Nicene Creed does not and did not advert to this text, but is in effect a review of 1 Cor 15:1 – 11, with a preface and epilogue. Cf. textual comparison on phrases in the classical English version here.)
The historical survey is also quite good for something so short. I would have liked a bit more on the evidence that indicates that the Imperial Family over the fifty years in which the Nicene formulation was debated onward before being reaffirmed and extended in 381, had a definite tendency to lean Arian or even revert to paganism in personal views, but by and large sought Imperial unity, however that is probably a bit much to expect.
This is in fact exactly what I would expect of an encyclopedia undertaking a NPOV approach to major issues, some of which will be unavoidably subject to controversy.
The article, then, is not a hoax, something offered under false pretences.
One may disagree with it, as I assume you do from your monicker, but that is a different thing, and indeed this is not the place for a debate on why you or I take the views we do. I will say, however, that your characterisation of the course section previously linked, is intemperate in tone and insinuations, and you need to seriously look at that.
By contrast the ID article misrepresents ID from its opening words, asserts easily disconfirmed smearing falsehoods, and is laced throughout with a definite agenda.
For instance, on fair comment, something like:
. . . is to be regarded as fair comment on a reasonable reading of publicly available evidence [e.g. download The Word free Bible study software and load a good Hebrew text with it then compare using the Strong's feature], it is not “anti-christian propaganda.”
Cheers,
KF
Maybe I overlooked, but: How many hits did the Bicholim entry have?